Why didn't Saddam Hussein provide hard evidence that he didn't have chemical weapons?

[JAR]

Why didn't Saddam Hussein provide hard evidence that he didn't have chemical weapons?

Many people say there is no hard evidence that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons, yet Saddam was given a chance to prove he didn't and he didn't take that chance.

[Martin]

Why don't you provide hard evidence that you don't owe me a million dollars?

Cash or cheque will be fine.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Martinm
Why don't you provide hard evidence that you don't owe me a million dollars?

Cash or cheque will be fine.
Please explain what this has to do with Saddam not proving that he didn't have chemical weapons.

[EdipisReks]

it's pretty hard to prove that you don't have something.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Martinm
Why don't you provide hard evidence that you don't owe me a million dollars?

Cash or cheque will be fine.
Saddam would have had a much easier time proving that he didn't have chemical weapons than I would have proving that I don't owe you a million dollars.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by JAR

Please explain what this has to do with Saddam not proving that he didn't have chemical weapons.

it had everything to do with Saddam not proving he didn't have chemical weapons. you didn't understand that for the same reason that you didn't understand Saddam's (potential) reason for not trying to prove it, assuming that Saddam's reason was soley one of logic. he probably didn't try because he didn't want to.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
it's pretty hard to prove that you don't have something.

But it was not merely a matter of proving he did not have something. He claimed that he had WMD and destroyed them all. No evidence of their destruction was provided.

[Earthborn]

Maybe because he hoped that the idea that he might have chemical weapons could deter an american attack. I heard somewhere that before the attack on Iraq, the CIA was of the official opinion that he did have them but would not use them unless provoked.

If he plainly said he had them, he would be immediately in breach with UN resolutions. If he didn't at least pretended he had them, he knew he was a sitting duck. Perhaps the witnesses who told the US he had WMDs were part of his disinformation.

When he noticed that the US wasn't going to be deterred by the WMDs, he quickly vanished, because he knew he wouldn't be able to stop them in any way. His bluff exploded in his face.

Pure speculation of course! :)

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by JAR

Saddam would have had a much easier time proving that he didn't have chemical weapons than I would have proving that I don't owe you a million dollars.

lol. how would he possibly do such a thing? do you propose that he hires a million billion trillion UN Inspectors to simultaneously look at every single place in the world where there could possible be iraqi WMD?

[uneasy]

Originally posted by JAR

Please explain what this has to do with Saddam not proving that he didn't have chemical weapons.

Think.

There is no evidence that Santa Claus does not exist. Therefore Santa Claus exists?

What are you doing here? Do you even read Randi's commentary?

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by ssibal


But it was not merely a matter of proving he did not have something. He claimed that he had WMD and destroyed them all. No evidence of their destruction was provided.

it still wouldn't have mattered. we did not know how many WMD he had at his peak contruction period, so evidence that there was destruction of some WMD would hardly show that he didn't have any left. even if he had tried his best to show how tons and tons of WMD had been destroyed, the hawks in washington would have simply said "he had more, and he's hiding it". it was a no-win situation for Saddam regardless of what he did.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


it still wouldn't have mattered. we did not know how many WMD he had at his peak contruction period, so evidence that there was destruction of some WMD would hardly show that he didn't have any left. even if he had tried his best to show how tons and tons of WMD had been destroyed, the hawks in washington would have simply said "he had more, and he's hiding it". it was a no-win situation for Saddam regardless of what he did.

Well, we did know how many WMD were unaccounted for (and still are) but he did not even try to provide the evidence that he destroyed them. He could have made the U.S. look worse by proving that he did destroy those weapons.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by ssibal


Well, we did know how many WMD were unaccounted for (and still are) but he did not even try to provide the evidence that he destroyed them. He could have made the U.S. look worse by proving that he did destroy those weapons.

we had no idea how many WMD were "unaccounted for" as there was never an accounting.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by uneasy


Think.

There is no evidence that Santa Claus does not exist. Therefore Santa Claus exists?

What are you doing here? Do you even read Randi's commentary?

Bad analogy, the situation is like everyone knowing Santa existed and you had him and you saying you killed Santa Claus yet you provide no evidence to support that claim.

[JAR]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
it's pretty hard to prove that you don't have something.
The inspectors knew where to look to find chemical weapons due to espionage. Instead of letting them look there immediately before he had time to hide the chemical weapons, Saddam asked to be given time to prepare for the inspection. The preparation time would give Saddam time to move the chemical weapons to a new location. If he did this repeatedly, he could have chemical weapons and the inspections would never prove it.

If Saddam didn't have chemical weapons, then his refusal to allow immediate inspections was an attempt to encourage the U.S. to invade his country. If that was the case, then his plan backfired. If it hadn't backfired, he'd still be ruling Iraq. Of course, its doubtful that he wanted his country to be invaded by the U.S. What's more likely is that he had chemical weapons which he didn't want the U.N. to know about and he hoped that his refusal to provide hard evidence that he didn't have them would not lead to an invasion of Iraq.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


we had no idea how many WMD were "unaccounted for" as there was never an accounting.

Uhm the UN inspectors had specific ammounts of specific weapons that they were trying to determine their whereabouts

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by JAR

Saddam would have had a much easier time proving that he didn't have chemical weapons than I would have proving that I don't owe you a million dollars.

:eek: :confused:

[JAR]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Maybe because he hoped that the idea that he might have chemical weapons could deter an american attack.[snip]
If he intended to deter an attack on his country with the belief by the U.S. that he had chemical weapons, wouldn't he just come out and say, "I have chemical weapons and if you invade my country, I will use them on your troops."

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by ssibal


But it was not merely a matter of proving he did not have something. He claimed that he had WMD and destroyed them all. No evidence of their destruction was provided.

What are you talking about? He provided a huge documentation of which weapons were destroyed. The Bush administration said they did not believe it. They stood up in the UN and presented the information, and were called liars by the Bush admin.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by ssibal


Uhm the UN inspectors had specific ammounts of specific weapons that they were trying to determine their whereabouts

lol. the UN having a cute little list and an accouting of the iraqi WMD are two totally different things. even if everything on the little list was accounted for, the hawks would still have said "he's got more and he's hiding it". why is this is hard to understand?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by ssibal


Well, we did know how many WMD were unaccounted for (and still are) but he did not even try to provide the evidence that he destroyed them. He could have made the U.S. look worse by proving that he did destroy those weapons.

Every country has weapons that are not accounted for. There was an article posted here recently, I think by me, of a stockpile of biological and chemical weapons that was found in America recently, which was also unaccounted for.

Gee, its a 3rd world country that was at war for 8 years with Iran, then was bombed back to the stone age in 1991 and has been struggling to survive ever since, with UN weapons inspectors coming and going in the early 90s, lots of weapons destructions going on, and gee some paperwork got lost. Image.

Ever been audited? If you can't provide a reciept to the IRS does that mean that the expense was not real?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


we had no idea how many WMD were "unaccounted for" as there was never an accounting.

It is possible that Saddam's regime could not account for them either. They did present documentation to Blix but that information was found wanting in the eyes of Bush, Blair, and Blix too I think. If the shelf life of biological and chemical agents expired perhaps this was not documented. This is all speculation of course.

Another possibility: Maybe Saddam's regime was meticulous, cautious, accurate, environmentally concerned, and competent when it came to the handling of and detailing of suspect materials and they lied, lied, lied and withheld information from the UN weapons inspectors.

[uneasy]

Originally posted by ssibal

Bad analogy, the situation is like everyone knowing Santa existed and you had him and you saying you killed Santa Claus yet you provide no evidence to support that claim.

OK

You can't prove Japan isn't still conducting medical experiments on prisoners. Therefore Japan is still conducting medical experiments on prisoners?

Come on. This poor argument technique has been discussed ad nauseum in Randi's commentary and this forum.

[Earthborn]

If he intended to deter an attack on his country with the belief by the U.S. that he had chemical weapons, wouldn't he just come out and say, "I have chemical weapons and if you invade my country, I will use them on your troops."Of course not. If he would do that, he knew he was in breach with UN resolutions, the security council would unaminously vote for a strike against Iraq and he would be in deep poo, especially since he didn't actually have those weapons.

It is very simple:
- If he said he had WMDs the whole world would be against him.
- If he said he didn't have WMDs, he knew the US or any other country could knock him over whenever it wanted.
- If he officially would deny having WMDs, but unofficially suggested that he had them, keeping very vague about the numbers, so their danger blows up to mythical proportions in peoples minds, he could deter attacks while at the same time keeping the world divided on whether he posed a threat or not.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Malachi151


What are you talking about? He provided a huge documentation of which weapons were destroyed. The Bush administration said they did not believe it. They stood up in the UN and presented the information, and were called liars by the Bush admin.

Read Blix's reports, the weapons are still unaccounted for.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


lol. the UN having a cute little list and an accouting of the iraqi WMD are two totally different things. even if everything on the little list was accounted for, the hawks would still have said "he's got more and he's hiding it". why is this is hard to understand?

And nothing on the list has been accounted for, that is the point. It was up to Iraq to account for the items, they said they destroyed them and did not provide evidence. Maybe the U.S. would have said they have more, it does not matter though because Iraq failed to support their claim that they destroyed the weapons.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Every country has weapons that are not accounted for. There was an article posted here recently, I think by me, of a stockpile of biological and chemical weapons that was found in America recently, which was also unaccounted for.

Gee, its a 3rd world country that was at war for 8 years with Iran, then was bombed back to the stone age in 1991 and has been struggling to survive ever since, with UN weapons inspectors coming and going in the early 90s, lots of weapons destructions going on, and gee some paperwork got lost. Image.

Ever been audited? If you can't provide a reciept to the IRS does that mean that the expense was not real?

Well, the U.S. is not claiming that we do not have chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The U.S. is not required to destroy our WMD, we have not claimed to UN inspectors that we destroyed WMD without providing evidence. You are comparing apples to oranges.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by uneasy


OK

You can't prove Japan isn't still conducting medical experiments on prisoners. Therefore Japan is still conducting medical experiments on prisoners?

Come on. This poor argument technique has been discussed ad nauseum in Randi's commentary and this forum.

Still a bad analogy, Japan is under a different leadership, Iraq was under the same leadership throughout this whole fiasco.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


And nothing on the list has been accounted for, that is the point. It was up to Iraq to account for the items, they said they destroyed them and did not provide evidence. Maybe the U.S. would have said they have more, it does not matter though because Iraq failed to support their claim that they destroyed the weapons.

Iraq under Saddam was not the most orderly and efficient of places. Maybe they didn't realise that one day they would have to account for it all.

I keep expecting something to be found. The fact that nothing of substance has been found is the amazing part.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by ssibal

And nothing on the list has been accounted for, that is the point. It was up to Iraq to account for the items, they said they destroyed them and did not provide evidence. Maybe the U.S. would have said they have more, it does not matter though because Iraq failed to support their claim that they destroyed the weapons.

Don't get me wrong, I was in total support of the war, but how is anyone supposed to provide evidence that they destroyed something? Hand over a sack of ashes? Make a videotape? Provide an official looking document that states the weapons have been destroyed and have it signed and notarized?

Unless the weapons were destroyed in front of an impartial third party (which they were not) I don't see how their destruction could ever be proven.

Regardless, I agree with EarthBorn, Saddam really screwed up on this one. Apparently he underestimate the resolve of the current administration.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by ssibal


Well, the U.S. is not claiming that we do not have chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The U.S. is not required to destroy our WMD, we have not claimed to UN inspectors that we destroyed WMD without providing evidence. You are comparing apples to oranges.

No, I'm not. Had the US been required to account for all WMD material 6 months ago that material would not have been accounted for.

To claim that is doesn't matter because we weren't required to provide proof is the lamest thing I ever heard.

[uneasy]

Originally posted by ssibal

Still a bad analogy, Japan is under a different leadership, Iraq was under the same leadership throughout this whole fiasco.

It's the battle of the analogies. I guess any analogy to anything is invalid because it's not exactly the same situation. You've convince me of that!

Just explain how Saddam Hussein could "provide hard evidence that he didn't have chemical weapons".

As EdipisReks pointed out, it's a virtual impossiblity. Prooving a negative. I give up. I leave the political forum to you guys. Have fun with it.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Of course not. If he would do that, he knew he was in breach with UN resolutions, the security council would unaminously vote for a strike against Iraq and he would be in deep poo, especially since he didn't actually have those weapons.

It is very simple:
- If he said he had WMDs the whole world would be against him.
- If he said he didn't have WMDs, he knew the US or any other country could knock him over whenever it wanted.
- If he officially would deny having WMDs, but unofficially suggested that he had them, keeping very vague about the numbers, so their danger blows up to mythical proportions in peoples minds, he could deter attacks while at the same time keeping the world divided on whether he posed a threat or not.
Let me get this straight. You think that Iraq didn't have chemical weapons and that the U.S. intended to invade Iraq, and that Saddam attempted to discourage the U.S. from this invasion by giving the impression that he had chemical weapons without actually saying he had them, and that he did this because if he said he had them, then, according to you, he would cause an invasion of his country supported by U.N.

If that's the case, I think you're wrong that the U.S. would have invaded Iraq regardless of whether Iraq allowed an immediate inspection for chemical weapons. The U.S. wasn't going to invade Iraq on condition that Iraq allowed an immediate inspection for chemical weapons that showed that he didn't have chemical weapons at locations designated by espionage. Iraq didn't meet that condition. It was given the chance and it didn't take it. If it met the condition, it knew there would be no war, assuming that no chemical weapons were found in the inspection.

The U.S. already had threatened war if there were chemical weapons in Iraq, so Saddam knew, if he didn't have chemical weapons at the locations designated by espionage, that the best chance of avoiding a war was to allow an immediate inspection to see if chemical weapons were at that location.

Saddam had chemical weapons at those locations, and knew that the immediate inspections would result in a war, so he refused to allow an immediate inspection, hoping that U.N. would believe him when he said he had no chemical weapons or would chicken out of a war.

[ImpyTimpy]

I don't know if Jar and ssibal are being stubborn or just thick but can we see what this proof of something's non existence needs to be? What would've been adequate proof by Saddam that the weapons were in fact destroyed?

And what would've stopped Bush and others from saying there are more weapons in Iraq?

Please, I'm all ears......

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Iraq under Saddam was not the most orderly and efficient of places. Maybe they didn't realise that one day they would have to account for it all.

You would think that 7 years of inspectors in the country would make them realize that they would?

[JAR]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
I don't know if Jar and ssibal are being stubborn or just thick but can we see what this proof of something's non existence needs to be? What would've been adequate proof by Saddam that the weapons were in fact destroyed?

And what would've stopped Bush and others from saying there are more weapons in Iraq?

Please, I'm all ears......
What it all comes down to is Saddam had a chance to allow an immediate inspection to see if he had chemical weapons which were located by the U.S. with espionage and he didn't take that chance because he knew the inspection would show that he did have chemical weapons.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by JAR

What it all comes down to is Saddam had a chance to allow an immediate inspection to see if he had chemical weapons which were located by the U.S. with espionage and he didn't take that chance because he knew the inspection would show that he did have chemical weapons.

Except that no inspection has shown that he had chemical weapons.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Malachi151
No, I'm not. Had the US been required to account for all WMD material 6 months ago that material would not have been accounted for.

To claim that is doesn't matter because we weren't required to provide proof is the lamest thing I ever heard.
But the U.S. did have proof, and it gained it through espionage. Saddam was given a chance to show that the U.S. espionage reports were false and he didn't take that chance because he knew that the reports of chemical weapons would prove to be true.

[ImpyTimpy]

But I thought Saddam did actually allow the inspectors in to verify the existence/non-existence of WMD's...

Also Blix stated many times Iraq was cooperating and allowing surprise access to suspect sites. Initial problem Blix had was with Iraq not destroying the banned missiles which as we have seen just before the war was rectified...

Originally posted by JAR

What it all comes down to is Saddam had a chance to allow an immediate inspection to see if he had chemical weapons which were located by the U.S. with espionage and he didn't take that chance because he knew the inspection would show that he did have chemical weapons.

[JAR]

Originally posted by No Answers
Except that no inspection has shown that he had chemical weapons.
We already know he had chemical weapons from espionage and because he refused to allow an immediate inspection to see whether he had chemical weapons.

[ImpyTimpy]

You do realise that it's the burden of the claimant to provide the evidence for the claim... Also what's this I'm hearing more and more about dodgy intelligence???

Originally posted by JAR

But the U.S. did have proof, and it gained it through espionage. Saddam was given a chance to show that the U.S. espionage reports were false and he didn't take that chance because he knew that the reports of chemical weapons would prove to be true.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Don't get me wrong, I was in total support of the war, but how is anyone supposed to provide evidence that they destroyed something? Hand over a sack of ashes? Make a videotape? Provide an official looking document that states the weapons have been destroyed and have it signed and notarized?

Unless the weapons were destroyed in front of an impartial third party (which they were not) I don't see how their destruction could ever be proven.

Those all would help but for starters, how about giving locations and methods of destruction? Iraq did not even do that! Then then UN could head over and determine if weapons were destroyed there. Iraq did not have sophisticated facilities for destroying WMD, so they would have left traces (unless they just dumped them in rivers or the sea).

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by ssibal


Read Blix's reports, the weapons are still unaccounted for.

Things unaccounted for from a decade ago do not add up to evidence of WMD. Our administration insisted it had intelligence - not Blix's reports - of the existence of WMD. That was a lie, as should be obvious by now.

They believed - still believe - that Saddam had them, and they were blinded to the possibility that he didn't. I don't think it ever occurred to them that their brazen lies (the ends justify the means, you know) would be exposed by the total absence of WMD!

As to the substance of this thread: HELLO, Saddam let the UN inspectors in and let them have pretty much free access. Objectively, what better evidence could he provide?

I'm surprised this point has not been mentioned previously in this thread, are we so forgetful? The inspectors didn't find beans, but they still had to leave so the US could bomb Iraq into oblivion. Which is where they will be as soon as we withdraw, it won't be too long before the Iraqis get to celebrate the bright future we have given them. As if our president EVER cared one iota about Iraq in the first place, it's all about his destiny to create a "New American Century" (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm).

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Malachi151


No, I'm not. Had the US been required to account for all WMD material 6 months ago that material would not have been accounted for.

To claim that is doesn't matter because we weren't required to provide proof is the lamest thing I ever heard.

So you are comparing the U.S. weapons that were buried in 1969 under a different administration to Iraq's supposedly recently destroyed weapons under the same administration? If it was known that the U.S. did have those weapons and the U.S. claimed that they destroyed those weapons without providing evidence then yes, it would not have been accounted for. But if I remember correctly, the U.S. did not even know those weapons were burried there. Iraq made the claim that they had destroyed them, which means they acknowledge that they had them at one point.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by uneasy


It's the battle of the analogies. I guess any analogy to anything is invalid because it's not exactly the same situation. You've convince me of that!

Just explain how Saddam Hussein could "provide hard evidence that he didn't have chemical weapons".

The problem is that it is not a matter of Saddam providing evidence that he did not have chemical weapons. It is a matter of providing evidence that he destroyed his chemical weapons. He could have simply said that they did not have any WMD, but they claimed that they destroyed their WMD (which is an admission that they had them).

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
I don't know if Jar and ssibal are being stubborn or just thick but can we see what this proof of something's non existence needs to be? What would've been adequate proof by Saddam that the weapons were in fact destroyed?

And what would've stopped Bush and others from saying there are more weapons in Iraq?

Please, I'm all ears......

Are you saying the UN inspectors were demanding too much? They were the ones asking for Iraq to substantiate their claim that they destroyed the weapons (as well as the U.S./U.K.). I guess it would be up to the inspectors to determine what adequate proof was, but even Blix's final report states that the WMD are unaccounted for (i.e. Iraq did not prove they destroyed them). As for what would have stopped people from saying Iraq had more weapons, nothing would have but it would be more difficult had Saddam proved that he destroyed his WMD.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Things unaccounted for from a decade ago do not add up to evidence of WMD.

You are right, but Iraq was required to account for them immediately under 1441. They did not. Perhaps you would give them the benefit of the doubt, I would not.

As to the substance of this thread: HELLO, Saddam let the UN inspectors in and let them have pretty much free access. Objectively, what better evidence could he provide?

So allowing inspectors to play hide and seek in his country is the equivalent of providing evidence that he destroyed his weapons????

[Earthborn]

Let me get this straight. You think that Iraq didn't have chemical weapons and that the U.S. intended to invade Iraq, and that Saddam attempted to discourage the U.S. from this invasion by giving the impression that he had chemical weapons without actually saying he had them, and that he did this because if he said he had them, then, according to you, he would cause an invasion of his country supported by U.N.Well, sort of. Remember that I don't claim that my scenario is how it actually happened. I just outlined a scenario of why Saddam might be unwilling to fully disclose that he was powerless.

I also don't claim that the US intended to invade Iraq no matter what. To understand Saddam's motives it isn't important to know what the US was planning to do, but what Saddam thought it might do. Big difference.If that's the case, I think you're wrong that the U.S. would have invaded Iraq regardless of whether Iraq allowed an immediate inspection for chemical weapons. The U.S. wasn't going to invade Iraq on condition that Iraq allowed an immediate inspection for chemical weapons that showed that he didn't have chemical weapons at locations designated by espionage.So, the 'other reasons to go to war' were irrelevant? Like the 'liberation of the Iraqi people' and stuff?

Also many locations designated by US intelligence were investigated by inspectors. Nothing was found. Hans Blix thought that the tips of the US hindered the investigations more than they helped them.Iraq didn't meet that condition. It was given the chance and it didn't take it. If it met the condition, it knew there would be no war, assuming that no chemical weapons were found in the inspection.Of course if Saddam used the bluff I outlined before, he must have done it years before the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq. Saddam wasn't given an ultimatum just yet.

Of course if you start bluffing you can't just stop bluffing when it gets tough. By bluffing Saddam painted himself into a corner. If he felt that by pretending to have WMDs he was protected, he can't just come clean when his enemy starts to make clear that he will be attacked 'no matter what'... He'll just has to hope his bluff works just a little longer.The U.S. already had threatened war if there were chemical weapons in Iraq, so Saddam knew, if he didn't have chemical weapons at the locations designated by espionage, that the best chance of avoiding a war was to allow an immediate inspection to see if chemical weapons were at that location.Many of those sites were inspected and nothing did turn up. But he already bluffed and can't undo that.Saddam had chemical weapons at those locations, and knew that the immediate inspections would result in a war, so he refused to allow an immediate inspection, hoping that U.N. would believe him when he said he had no chemical weapons or would chicken out of a war.The problem with that is again: the inspectors did in fact inspect many of the sites that US intelligence told them to look, and they found nothing!

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-6-2003-41341.asp

Hans Blix:"Only in three of those cases did we find anything at all, and in none of these cases was there any weapons of mass destruction, and that shook me a bit, I must say.
I thought, my God, if this is the best intelligence they have and we find nothing, what about the rest?"

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrChinese


"New American Century" (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm).

Yes, the century when the whole world is run by the US, with Dan Quayle one of those leading it.

[Genghis Pwn]

This is precisely the reason why I feel confident that WMD will be found. If Saddam really did destroy the weapons before the showdown in the UN, he would have provided some evidence in some form or another to save his own ass, even if it was just some scientists saying, "Yep, we burned XX kgs of XXX on XXX date...."

Is was MANDATORY ON SADDAM TO PROVIDE THIS EVIDENCE. At a minimum he could have come clean with exactly what the history of his WMD projects were. If he had, the US would not have been able to justify a massive war against him.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by JAR

But the U.S. did have proof, and it gained it through espionage. Saddam was given a chance to show that the U.S. espionage reports were false and he didn't take that chance because he knew that the reports of chemical weapons would prove to be true.

Bull! The USA did not have any such proof and if you would follow the news, then you would know that your statement is quite incorrect. Since the invasion, the country has been throughly searched and still, no WMDs.

Have any Iraqi chemical weapons been found since the end of the recent Gulf War? No.
Have any Iraqi biological weapons been found since the end of the recent Gulf War? No.
Have any Iraqi nuclear weapons been found since the end of the recent Gulf War? No.

Just two days ago the White House said that they did not have any hard intelligence on Iraqi WMDs, they simply "assumed" Iraq had WMDs since Iraq had them in the past.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by JAR

But the U.S. did have proof, and it gained it through espionage. Saddam was given a chance to show that the U.S. espionage reports were false and he didn't take that chance because he knew that the reports of chemical weapons would prove to be true.

Where is this proof?
Bush and Blair say there is proof but will not share this proof. THey did not share these reports with the UN, when Saddam's regime requested details they were denied.

Now that the war is over and I presume the sources that provided the intelligence are no longer in danger, why do the Bush and Blair administrations hold back on the proof?

Some of the proof presented turned out to be weak, like the document detailing Iraq's attempted acquisition of nuclear material from an African country (Nigeria ?). The report/essay that turned out to be a student's work from a few years back.

Why not declassify some of the Medium to High intelligence reports. Only a small percentage will be necessary as there was apparently a lot of compelling evidence to convince the administrations disarmament was the way to go.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by ssibal


1. You are right, but Iraq was required to account for them immediately under 1441. They did not. Perhaps you would give them the benefit of the doubt, I would not.

2. So allowing inspectors to play hide and seek in his country is the equivalent of providing evidence that he destroyed his weapons????

1. 1441 has nothing to do with evidence of WMD in any way. You could also pass a UN resolution that Satan exists, or that Saddam must dance naked in New York. Benefit of the doubt has absolutely nothing to do with it. The administration said they had PROOF of the existence of WMD - over and above logical inference that the weapons existed a long time ago and must therefore exist still. That was a lie as has been exposed. Please acknowledge the obvious, the intelligence didn't exist.

2. I specifically stated that "Objectively, what better evidence could he provide?" and I did NOT state that it would satisfy Bush (or you). Just that he did the best that he could do by a reasonable standard since no one would accept HIS word.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
This is precisely the reason why I feel confident that WMD will be found. If Saddam really did destroy the weapons before the showdown in the UN, he would have provided some evidence in some form or another to save his own ass, even if it was just some scientists saying, "Yep, we burned XX kgs of XXX on XXX date...."

Is was MANDATORY ON SADDAM TO PROVIDE THIS EVIDENCE. At a minimum he could have come clean with exactly what the history of his WMD projects were. If he had, the US would not have been able to justify a massive war against him.

Genghis, do facts interest you? Because your "logic" chain fails to match up with the fact that there are currently no WMD of any significant amount in Iraq! You are twisting things around when the true solution is obvious. No WMD found because they never existed!

Notice that you now have to explain a) why no WMD found so far (i.e. buried, burned, etc.); and b) why you believe that WMD will be found in the future, yet every day that goes by is counter-evidence.

As to the justification for the war: we were going to war no matter what, as should be obvious by now. The facts did not matter to Bush given his agenda.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Don't get me wrong, I was in total support of the war, but how is anyone supposed to provide evidence that they destroyed something? Hand over a sack of ashes? Make a videotape? Provide an official looking document that states the weapons have been destroyed and have it signed and notarized?

Unless the weapons were destroyed in front of an impartial third party (which they were not) I don't see how their destruction could ever be proven.


There are ways that it can be 'proven'...

- Documentation: Yes, even 'signed' documents can be forged; however, documents from multiple sources can be examined for inconsistencies (i.e. document A says that 100 pounds of chem agent was in a location, while Document B says that 200 pounds was transported to the destruction location, etc.)

- They can show the actual destruction sites. Iraq had been using the 'open pit burning' technique to destroy WMD previously; even that will leave some evidence behind (burnt out chem shells, residue, etc.)

- Allow interviews with those who would have participated in the destruction. Compare their stories against the documentation provided and the physical evidence

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Don't get me wrong, I was in total support of the war, but how is anyone supposed to provide evidence that they destroyed something? Hand over a sack of ashes? Make a videotape? Provide an official looking document that states the weapons have been destroyed and have it signed and notarized?



Paperwork.

This is what this all is about.

Government agencies don't care near as much about what you actually do and have, as long as the paperwork is in order.

We deal with the EPA a lot. The first thing they do when they show up is check to see that the paperwork is in order.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
This is precisely the reason why I feel confident that WMD will be found. If Saddam really did destroy the weapons before the showdown in the UN, he would have provided some evidence in some form or another to save his own ass, even if it was just some scientists saying, "Yep, we burned XX kgs of XXX on XXX date...."



At least one of the captured scientists has basically said that. He said they destroyed their WMDs right after GWI.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


At least one of the captured scientists has basically said that. He said they destroyed their WMDs right after GWI.

If this is to be believed, then our intelligence agencies were a decade out of date, or W lied.

[Tmy]

HA HA!! Do you really think there was anything Saddam couldve turnd over (other than his power) that wouldve stoped GW from moving in? It was all pretext.

If we had all this intelligence then why cant we fidn the stuff? Was the intelligencce wrong or just a bunch of lies to angry up the blood. Like that whole Jessica Lynch bullflop.

[Elektrix]

One big problem with this here also would seem to be that the documentation that Saddam's regime did provide were apparently not completely trustworthy. In Blix's report to the UN in January, for example, he said that the documentation that Iraq provided them with about their VX weapons program was that they had only produced some as a trial, and it wasn't effective, and was never weaponized. But then Blix's group found other documents indicating that the amount and quality of VX produced was better than they had indicated, and that it was apparently weaponized as well.

Aside from that, in Blix's report up to January he himself said that the only logical conclusion he could come to about the chemicals still unaccounted for by Iraq were that they hadn't been destroyed.

Anyway..... the point would seem to be that Hussein's regime was not trustworthy here..... and it seems like it isn't as simple as saying "they couldn't provide proof they destroyed it because there was nothing to destroy", or that they were completely up front and honest, when a lot of what was gathered seems to indicate a more specific effort to mislead everyone else about what was being developed and what was done with it.

-Elektrix

[Genghis Pwn]

Lol at saying that since the WMD haven't been found yet, they don't exist and never did. Great logic there. We just found the #4 most wanted guy in Iraq YESTERDAY. It will take time to find everything and everyone involved in the WMD programs.

Time will tell, and all the America haters are going to be eating a huge, steaming plate of crow. :o

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


At least one of the captured scientists has basically said that. He said they destroyed their WMDs right after GWI.

Do you have a link for this? (I'm not doubting it, I would just like to hear about what was said.)

I don't think they could have destroyed their WMD right after GW1... After all, the inspectors were uncovering lots of their weapons programs for years after the first war (thanks in large part to a defector who showed them where to look).

They could have destroyed them after the first round of inspections ended; however, this comes back to the original question... why did Saddam not allow the inspectors to interview this scientist (as well as others)?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Lol at saying that since the WMD haven't been found yet, they don't exist and never did. Great logic there. We just found the #4 most wanted guy in Iraq YESTERDAY. It will take time to find everything and everyone involved in the WMD programs.

Time will tell, and all the America haters are going to be eating a huge, steaming plate of crow. :o

Fine by me GP!

The White House has all but given up on finding any Iraqi WMDs.

- They have already admitted that the claim regarding Iraq buying uranimium was wrong.
- They have already admitted that they had no hard intelliegence about Iraq WMDs.
- They have already admitted that the two trailers found were probably not being used in a WMD program.
- They have not found any Iraqis who could show them where to find WMDs.
- They have not found any WMDs (but of course you already knew that).
- They have admitted that there conclusions about Iraqi WMDs were based on incorrect data and assumptions.

So, before you go to China and mix it up with all those hot women, would you like to make a bet who will be eating crow?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Do you have a link for this? (I'm not doubting it, I would just like to hear about what was said.)



I think I heard it within the last couple of weeks. I don't see it on USAToday, but I haven't looked hard.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Lol at saying that since the WMD haven't been found yet, they don't exist and never did. Great logic there. We just found the #4 most wanted guy in Iraq YESTERDAY. It will take time to find everything and everyone involved in the WMD programs.

Time will tell, and all the America haters are going to be eating a huge, steaming plate of crow. :o

100-500 tons of WMD (which cannot move on its own) is a lot different than "#4" who is wanted dead or alive (and has a powerful incentive to escape). 100-500 tons cannot be hidden in a closet either - so where is it?

And let's examine this brilliant argument:

a. Bush's Skeptics & Critics = "America Haters", but that makes
b. Bush's Suckers & Apologists = "America Lovers"

Hmmm, let's make up some more false dichotomies and call people names!

[ssibal]

Originally posted by DrChinese


1. 1441 has nothing to do with evidence of WMD in any way. You could also pass a UN resolution that Satan exists, or that Saddam must dance naked in New York. Benefit of the doubt has absolutely nothing to do with it. The administration said they had PROOF of the existence of WMD - over and above logical inference that the weapons existed a long time ago and must therefore exist still. That was a lie as has been exposed. Please acknowledge the obvious, the intelligence didn't exist.

Please re-read the title of this thread, it has nothing to do with the U.S.'s claims of WMD in Iraq. It is about Iraq's claims that they did not have those WMD (they claimed they destroyed them). Benefit of the doubt has plenty to do with it, either you believe Iraq was lying about destroying the unaccounted for weapons or you believe they were telling the truth. As for 1441, remember Iraq was supposed to make a declaration of all their weapons programs (including anything that could be dual use). Then after they did, the inspectors still said certain WMD were unaccounted for, which Iraq replied saying that they had destroyed them themselves. They never provided the evidence for that claim.

2. I specifically stated that "Objectively, what better evidence could he provide?" and I did NOT state that it would satisfy Bush (or you). Just that he did the best that he could do by a reasonable standard since no one would accept HIS word.

That was the best he could do? He did not even follow the guidlines that were set for the inspectors under 1441. Regardless, why did he not provide documents, locations, methods, dates, persons,....etc for the alleged destruction of their WMD?

[Crossbow]

OK, you pro-war guys want the regarding what facts Saddam did and did not provide, here goes.

One:
There are 19 anti-Iraq Resolutions that went through the UN
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/resolutions2.html

Two:
Resolution 1441 does not authorize an invasion of Iraq.
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/resolutions/res1441.pdf

Three:
There is voluminious documentation available concerning just what was seen and done in Iraq for the last 11 years.
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/reports2.html

[Random]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Lol at saying that since the WMD haven't been found yet, they don't exist and never did. Great logic there. We just found the #4 most wanted guy in Iraq YESTERDAY. It will take time to find everything and everyone involved in the WMD programs.

Time will tell, and all the America haters are going to be eating a huge, steaming plate of crow. :o

You are correct in saying that simply because we have not found WMD yet does not mean they are not there or never were. Absence of evidence is not evidense of absence. It is faulty logic.

But it is also faulty logic to say "the WMD is there, we just haven't found it yet". This presupposes the existence of WMD, and forces opponents to try to prove a negative, that they are not there. It's also not a testable theory. If you look under a rock and don't find any WMD, this neither proves nor disproves the theory.

A question for both sides:
For the Bushies) How long should we give inspectors to find WMD before we declare that there are no WMD in Iraq? What would you accept as proof of this?
For the Skeptics) Other than turning over a rock and finding WMD, what would you accept as proof that Sadaam had WMD?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by ssibal


Please re-read the title of this thread, it has nothing to do with the U.S.'s claims of WMD in Iraq. It is about Iraq's claims that they did not have those WMD (they claimed they destroyed them). Benefit of the doubt has plenty to do with it, either you believe Iraq was lying about destroying the unaccounted for weapons or you believe they were telling the truth.

Etc.

Saddam says he had no WMD. Even I believe Saddam is a low-down liar, so if that was the issue then I would be pro-war. But it isn't. Just because Saddam is a liar does not mean either of the following: a) Saddam has WMD; or b) Saddam is a threat to the US.

Ergo, it was going to be up to an "independent" authority to "audit" Saddam. That process began last fall, but was not acceptable to Bush. Saddam did all he could, given the loser he is. 4 years had elapsed since inspections had occurred.

So the relevance to this thread is: Saddam did his part to the best of his ability, but Bush was never interested in the results of the UN inspectors. No one would have been acceptable to Bush under any circumstances. Because Bush had the "superior intelligence" which made his opinion right and all others wrong.

Except that he was lying, he didn't have that intel. Bush bluffed, assuming that WMD would be found. Oops! This is obvious now by the lack of evidence discovered after Bush's determined search of Iraq. No evidence, no leads. It was all just a means to an end for Bush. One down, two (Iran/NK) to go.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Random
How long should we give inspectors to find WMD before we declare that there are no WMD in Iraq?

If they have not found anything by May of 2004 I think it is safe to say there are no WMD in Iraq.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Saddam says he had no WMD. Even I believe Saddam is a low-down liar, so if that was the issue then I would be pro-war. But it isn't. Just because Saddam is a liar does not mean either of the following: a) Saddam has WMD; or b) Saddam is a threat to the US.

The problem is that Saddam did not just say he had no WMD, he said that they destroyed their WMD. And with no evidence to support that claim, I would say it it more likely that he still had WMD. I never thought he was a threat to the U.S. even though I believe he had WMD.

[ImpyTimpy]

Spoken like a true believer ssibal...

First, it's the if there's no evidence for it's non existence, it must exist.

Now it's just give it more time..

:rolleyes:

Goal post moving and asking to prove something's non existence are the favourite tools of a kook. Don't let it bother you though, carry on, the world needs true believers, otherwise skeptics wouldn't have something to laugh at.

Originally posted by ssibal


If they have not found anything by May of 2004 I think it is safe to say there are no WMD in Iraq.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by ssibal


The problem is that Saddam did not just say he had no WMD, he said that they destroyed their WMD. And with no evidence to support that claim, I would say it it more likely that he still had WMD. I never thought he was a threat to the U.S. even though I believe he had WMD.

Yikes ssibal! You're really scaring me now! I agree with what you are saying! (No threat to US, probable "some" WMD)

But I don't think even he knew what he had, where it was, or what it could do. And I certainly don't think that Bush had any intelligence of any reasonable kind about Saddam.

By the way, just to be fair in case you think I am anti-Republican (which I am not in the least)... when JFK got into that stuff with Castro it was just as bad and ridiculous. Please note that 40+ years later, that little country is still a thorn in our side and it all goes back to 1962+/-. Ditto Iran circa 1980 and Jimmy Carter 20+ years later. So I expect to be hearing about ol' Iraq until well past my retirement.

Do we ever learn?????

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
First, it's the if there's no evidence for it's non existence, it must exist.

I never claimed that. Saddam said he destroyed the WMD, given that he has been deceptive concerning WMD in the past I think it is more likely than not that he was being deceptive regarding the destruction of his WMD.

Now it's just give it more time..

Now it is just give it more time? Since the war 'ended,' I have said that I am giving them a year to find the WMD. I think that is a reasonable ammount of time considering we have control of the country. I never expected or claimed that WMD would be found immediately.

Goal post moving and asking to prove something's non existence are the favourite tools of a kook. Don't let it bother you though, carry on, the world needs true believers, otherwise skeptics wouldn't have something to laugh at.


Please tell me what goal posts I have moved? When have I ever said that Iraq had to prove the nonexistence of something? Since when is providing evidence for the claim that you destroyed WMD proving the nonexistence of something? If you tell me that you destroyed your car and I ask you to provide evidence that you did am I asking you to prove the nonexistence of your car? Of course not! Where is YOUR skepticism regarding Saddam's claim?

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by ssibal

I never claimed that. Saddam said he destroyed the WMD, given that he has been deceptive concerning WMD in the past I think it is more likely than not that he was being deceptive regarding the destruction of his WMD.

And that's why we had the whole inspection process.

Now it is just give it more time? Since the war 'ended,' I have said that I am giving them a year to find the WMD. I think that is a reasonable ammount of time considering we have control of the country. I never expected or claimed that WMD would be found immediately.

A year is already a very long time... In a year we'll forget about this and move onto something else...

Also think about it, U.S. knew Saddam had the weapons and knew where they were... Now it seems the intelligence was wrong or as we hear more and more delibaretely altered... Oh but wait, give them a year so they can come up with "something"...


Please tell me what goal posts I have moved? When have I ever said that Iraq had to prove the nonexistence of something? Since when is providing evidence for the claim that you destroyed WMD proving the nonexistence of something? If you tell me that you destroyed your car and I ask you to provide evidence that you did am I asking you to prove the nonexistence of your car? Of course not! Where is YOUR skepticism regarding Saddam's claim?
Saddam didn't claim he had WMD's.. When asked if he had WMD's he said he doesn't - the old stock was destroyed.

Secondly, Saddam did allow the inspectors into his country to verify whether WMD's exist or not!

This is all beside a point and your believer tactic of prove that mars doesn't have invisible pink unicorns is growing thin...

U.S. made the claim that Saddam still possessed vast amounts of deadly toxins and that they knew where they were located! It's not up to Saddam to disprove the claims of U.S., it's up to U.S. to prove their claims against Saddam. It's not up to Saddam to provide evidence for non-existence..

Also your analogy is faulty. More correct analogy would be you claiming I have a red car, with me saying I do not have one anymore and you asking me to prove I do not possess the said car. In that case, you're asking me to prove something's non existence.. I show you the car isn't here anymore and you can claim it's because I moved it.. It's an unprovable position loved by kooks and everyone except you seems to understand that.

And at first I thought Saddam had WMD's too but as I saw no evidence emerging to say he did I became skeptical of the whole thing.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

And that's why we had the whole inspection process.

And once again it did not work since Saddam did not play by the rules set under 1441.

A year is already a very long time... In a year we'll forget about this and move onto something else...

Also think about it, U.S. knew Saddam had the weapons and knew where they were... Now it seems the intelligence was wrong or as we hear more and more delibaretely altered... Oh but wait, give them a year so they can come up with "something"...

This is totally unrelated to the issue of why Saddam did not provide the evidence that he destroyed the WMD. Someone asked how long we should give before we declare that no WMD are there and I gave my opinion. If you think that a year is too much time then I respectfully disagree.

Saddam didn't claim he had WMD's.. When asked if he had WMD's he said he doesn't - the old stock was destroyed.

No, he claimed that he destroyed the weapons. Read Blix's reports.

Secondly, Saddam did allow the inspectors into his country to verify whether WMD's exist or not!

But he did not live up to the obligations put forth under 1441.



U.S. made the claim that Saddam still possessed vast amounts of deadly toxins and that they knew where they were located! It's not up to Saddam to disprove the claims of U.S., it's up to U.S. to prove their claims against Saddam. It's not up to Saddam to provide evidence for non-existence..

You are mixing two completly different issues. Saddam claimed that he destroyed the unaccounted for WMD, therefore it is up to him to provide evidence of their destruction. The fact that the U.S. claimed that he possessed vast ammounts and knew where they were has no bearing on the claim that Saddam made (unless they are correct). For the sake of argument, let us assme that the U.S. completely fabricated that claim, Saddam would still have to provide evidence that he destroyed the WMD as he claimed he did.

Also your analogy is faulty. More correct analogy would be you claiming I have a red car, with me saying I do not have one anymore and you asking me to prove I do not possess the said car. In that case, you're asking me to prove something's non existence.. I show you the car isn't here anymore and you can claim it's because I moved it.. It's an unprovable position loved by kooks and everyone except you seems to understand that.

That unprovable position is nothing more than a strawman. Saddam claimed that he destroyed the WMD, he did not merely claim that he did not have it anymore (which would still leave many unanswered questions) he said that he destroyed them. The UN inspectors kept asking for evidence to support that claim and if you read any of Blix's reports, you will see that Blix made it clear that they never recieved it.

And at first I thought Saddam had WMD's too but as I saw no evidence emerging to say he did I became skeptical of the whole thing.

Well, I agree that with every passing day it appears more likely that there are no WMD there. It does not change my position regarding the war though, you can read my pre-war posts to see that Iraq's actual possession of WMD was not my main reason for supporting the war.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by ssibal

And once again it did not work since Saddam did not play by the rules set under 1441.

I'm a little rusty on which rules exactly Saddam didn't play by... Care to show them?

Remember, we're talking to do with inspection process...


This is totally unrelated to the issue of why Saddam did not provide the evidence that he destroyed the WMD. Someone asked how long we should give before we declare that no WMD are there and I gave my opinion. If you think that a year is too much time then I respectfully disagree.

No, he claimed that he destroyed the weapons. Read Blix's reports.


Actually, I have. Blix talks about Iraq cooperating (which I qouted many times in these discussions).

Now you're still trying hard to push the burden of proof onto Iraq... U.S. made the claim first however, not Iraq.

But he did not live up to the obligations put forth under 1441.

Which ones? The inspection process was proceeding with Iraq's cooperation so tell me which ones?

You are mixing two completly different issues. Saddam claimed that he destroyed the unaccounted for WMD, therefore it is up to him to provide evidence of their destruction. The fact that the U.S. claimed that he possessed vast ammounts and knew where they were has no bearing on the claim that Saddam made (unless they are correct). For the sake of argument, let us assme that the U.S. completely fabricated that claim, Saddam would still have to provide evidence that he destroyed the WMD as he claimed he did.

It is you who is mixing things up. U.S. made the claim Iraq had WMD's and it's up to them to provide the evidence for it. They made the claim first.

That unprovable position is nothing more than a strawman. Saddam claimed that he destroyed the WMD, he did not merely claim that he did not have it anymore (which would still leave many unanswered questions) he said that he destroyed them. The UN inspectors kept asking for evidence to support that claim and if you read any of Blix's reports, you will see that Blix made it clear that they never recieved it.

Have you actually read Blix's reports? I mean the actual reports, not media snippets. Blix talks about Iraq cooperating, not failing to provide them with evidence or access to questionable sites.

Well, I agree that with every passing day it appears more likely that there are no WMD there. It does not change my position regarding the war though, you can read my pre-war posts to see that Iraq's actual possession of WMD was not my main reason for supporting the war.
We're not discussing support for war here.

[RichardR]

If Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, why didn’t he use them when the US invaded?

[JAR]

Originally posted by RichardR
If Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, why didn’t he use them when the US invaded?
Because he would prove the U.S. government's claim that he had weapons of mass destruction to be true.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by JAR

Because he would prove the U.S. government's claim that he had weapons of mass destruction to be true.

So, no matter the circumstances, he wasn't going to use these weapons? Sounds sort of strange to me.

He had them for no purpose. Hmmm.

If you're not going to use 'em on an invading army, why have them at all?

[JAR]

Originally posted by No Answers
So, no matter the circumstances, he wasn't going to use these weapons? Sounds sort of strange to me.

He had them for no purpose. Hmmm.

If you're not going to use 'em on an invading army, why have them at all?
It wasn't an invading army that Saddam was going to use his chemical weapons on, it was his own people. He could use his chemical weapons to fight rebellions in his country.

He could also use them in offensive wars. He wasn't sure enough that he could win one yet, so that's why he wasn't invading anything.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by JAR

It wasn't an invading army that Saddam was going to use his chemical weapons on, it was his own people. He could use his chemical weapons to fight rebellions in his country.

He could also use them in offensive wars. He wasn't sure enough that he could win one yet, so that's why he wasn't invading anything.

What weapons? You are debating the purpose of things that don't exist.

What is the color of Santa's bedroom? An equally fascinating and relevant subject.

[ImpyTimpy]

Now I've heard everything...

Do you even realise how utterly stupid that statement is? Spreading chemical and biological weapons over your own soil is asking for trouble. It's much more efficient to just shoot the protesters - you don't need to worry about effective delivery, you don't need to clean up left over toxins and you don't need to worry about changing weather conditions.

And to dispell the myth once and for all (correct me if I'm wrong) but isn't there a big debate over whether Saddam actually gassed the Kurds or not (as in was it Iran or Iraq that did the gassing) considering the area was under Iran's control at the time of gassing.

Originally posted by JAR

It wasn't an invading army that Saddam was going to use his chemical weapons on, it was his own people. He could use his chemical weapons to fight rebellions in his country.

He could also use them in offensive wars. He wasn't sure enough that he could win one yet, so that's why he wasn't invading anything.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Lol at saying that since the WMD haven't been found yet, they don't exist and never did. Great logic there. We just found the #4 most wanted guy in Iraq YESTERDAY. It will take time to find everything and everyone involved in the WMD programs.

Time will tell, and all the America haters are going to be eating a huge, steaming plate of crow. :o

We will never have to eat it. Even if WMD are found tomorrow, it will not have been because of the intelligence that was used to justify the war. It will have been because of intelligence gained since the war finished.

[JAR]

This was said by ImpyTimpy concerning my claim that the Iraqi government under Saddam could use chemical weapons against it's own people.
Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
[snip]

Do you even realise how utterly stupid that statement is? Spreading chemical and biological weapons over your own soil is asking for trouble. It's much more efficient to just shoot the protesters - you don't need to worry about effective delivery, you don't need to clean up left over toxins and you don't need to worry about changing weather conditions.
[snip]

ImpyTimpy, are you saying that Saddam would never use chemical and biological weapons in Iraq because he'd have a mess to clean up?

[JAR]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
We will never have to eat it. Even if WMD are found tomorrow, it will not have been because of the intelligence that was used to justify the war. It will have been because of intelligence gained since the war finished.
I disagree. According to what Colin Powell said, if weapons of mass destruction are found, it will have been because of the intelligence that was used to justify the war.

According to an article Jedi Knight gave a link to:Powell said there was "no doubt whatsoever" that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the U.S.-led invasion that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, though little evidence has turned up since then.


In the article Colin Powell also said:"I can assure you that if those biological vans were not biological vans, when I said they were, on February 5, on February 6 Iraq would have hauled those vans out, put them in front of the press conference, gave them to the UNMOVIC inspectors to try to drive a stake in the heart of my presentation," he said. "They did not."

I got this quote from a link given by Jedi Knight. The address of the link is:http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/08/sprj.irq.main/index.html

The address of the thread that Jedi Knight gave the link in is: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21080&highlight=Powell

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JAR

I disagree. According to what Colin Powell said, if weapons of mass destruction are found, it will have been because of the intelligence that was used to justify the war.

Colin Powell said:


I got this quote from a link given by Jedi Knight. The address of the link is:http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/08/sprj.irq.main/index.html

That is the only item that has been shown as a result of the search. And even then, there is much debate still as to the purpose of the vans.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

I'm a little rusty on which rules exactly Saddam didn't play by... Care to show them?

Remember, we're talking to do with inspection process...

Well, there was that rule about interviewing scientists outside of the country with their families and with no Iraqi observers. Iraq did not allow that. Then there was the matter of Iraq cooperating "cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively." Once again, that did not happen.


Actually, I have. Blix talks about Iraq cooperating (which I qouted many times in these discussions).

Yes, I know Blix talked about Iraq cooperating but they were not required to merely cooperate. They were supposed to cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively. If you read Blix's reports he indicates that they were not cooperating under those guidelines.

Now you're still trying hard to push the burden of proof onto Iraq... U.S. made the claim first however, not Iraq.

I am not trying to push any burden of proof onto Iraq. Iraq is responsible for the claims that they made so the burden of proof is on them. They claimed that they destroyed the WMD when asked what happened to them so it is up to them to provide evidence of their destruction (once again Blix wanted the evidence of their destruction). The fact that the U.S. claimed that Iraq had WMD is irrelevant to Iraq's claim. The fact that there was no empirical evidence to support the claims of the U.S. does not relieve Iraq of the burden of proving its own claim (that they destroyed their WMD).


Which ones? The inspection process was proceeding with Iraq's cooperation so tell me which ones?


See above.

It is you who is mixing things up. U.S. made the claim Iraq had WMD's and it's up to them to provide the evidence for it. They made the claim first.

Once again, they are two separate claims and it does not matter who made the claim first. The U.S. not providing evidence to support their claim does not relive Iraq of its obligation to provide evidence to support its claim.


Have you actually read Blix's reports? I mean the actual reports, not media snippets. Blix talks about Iraq cooperating, not failing to provide them with evidence or access to questionable sites.

Uhm, he talks about how they were not cooperating actively and yes he does mention their failure to provide evidence to support their claims that they destroyed their WMD.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by RichardR
If Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, why didn’t he use them when the US invaded?

Why didn't Hitler use his chemical and biological weapons when the allies invaded?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by ssibal
...

Now it is just give it more time? Since the war 'ended,' I have said that I am giving them a year to find the WMD. I think that is a reasonable ammount of time considering we have control of the country. I never expected or claimed that WMD would be found immediately.

...

Wow! What a fascinating thing to say.

It is almost exactly what the UN Inspection team was wanting before the shooting started. But of course that was not good enough for the pro-War people, but now that the war has occured, and has been won, this time frame is now considered valid.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by ssibal


Why didn't Hitler use his chemical and biological weapons when the allies invaded?

For the same reason that the Allies did not use chemical and biological weapons against the Axis. If one side uses these weapons, then it encourages the other side to use them as well.

[Tricky]

Several here have proposed that we give the US a year (from the end of the war) to find the WMDS. I suggest that we subtract from that time, all of the months that UN inspectors were looking for WMDs.

BTW, has anyone ever offerred a credible explanation of why the US doesn't want the UN inspectors to share the knowledge they gained? I mean, other than foolish pride.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by JAR
Because he would prove the U.S. government's claim that he had weapons of mass destruction to be true. Did Saddam tell you this himself? ;)

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


We will never have to eat it. Even if WMD are found tomorrow, it will not have been because of the intelligence that was used to justify the war. It will have been because of intelligence gained since the war finished.

Exactly!

The intelligence available to "justify" the war has already proved useless. The entire country is our oyster, and we have had the opportunity to check out all the known spots as well as derivative/related locations. Still nothing found.

At this point, Bush et al are hoping - praying - they'll get lucky and something will be found that they can point to and say: "I told you so." But it will be from being there and being lucky, not from the intelligence.

And that could happen... but you don't invade countries HOPING to discover a reason to invade that country. At least, I try no to.

[Crossbow]

Spot on Dr C!

What the USA did was assume that Iraq must have at least some WMDs in its arsenals now since Iraq used chemical weapons some 15 years ago. Therefore, Bush and Company felt perfectly justified in starting the war since they were positive of their facts.

[RichardR]

Breaking news: (http://www.theonion.com/onion3923/index.html)

U.S. Refuses To Allow U.N. Weapons Inspectors
Back Into Iraq

BAGHDAD, IRAQ—For the third time in as many weeks, U.S. officials denied U.N. weapons inspectors' request to reenter Iraq. "Thanks so much for the offer, but we can handle it from here," Lt. Gen. William Wallace told U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix. "We're getting very close to finding Saddam's massive WMD stockpile, and to have the U.N. get involved at this point would just complicate matters. Sorry." U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has given President Bush a June 28 deadline to let inspectors into Iraq.
;)

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Wow! What a fascinating thing to say.

It is almost exactly what the UN Inspection team was wanting before the shooting started. But of course that was not good enough for the pro-War people, but now that the war has occured, and has been won, this time frame is now considered valid.

It was not considered valid for the UN inspectors because history has shown that they are not very good at finding weapons. It took an Iraqi defector to show them where the weapons were the last time around. Then the fact that Saddam was not allowing scientists and their families to be flown somewhere else or interviews without government officials present(as required under 1441) rendered them somewhat ineffective this time around.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Crossbow


For the same reason that the Allies did not use chemical and biological weapons against the Axis. If one side uses these weapons, then it encourages the other side to use them as well.

Then that would be a valid explanation for Saddam not using his WMD if he had them.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by RichardR
Breaking news: (http://www.theonion.com/onion3923/index.html)


;)


Hmmm, from America's finest news source huh. I really enjoy the Onion.

[Crossbow]

But the inspectors did do a good job of finding and destroying Iraq's weapons.

In fact, it was well established prior to the recent war that the inspectors got rid of far more proscribed Iraqi weapons than did the first Gulf War.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Crossbow
But the inspectors did do a good job of finding and destroying Iraq's weapons.

In fact, it was well established prior to the recent war that the inspectors got rid of far more proscribed Iraqi weapons than did the first Gulf War.

I guess, if you consider having a defector tell you where everything is to be a good job of finding the weapons. The inspectors did find some stuff but they were prepared to end inspections when it was revealed that there was plenty they did not find.

[Mocker Wall]

It was not considered valid for the UN inspectors because history has shown that they are not very good at finding weapons.

Well so far, the US hasn't had much luck in finding them either.

[JAR]

I was going to quote from the article RichardR quoted from, but I just realized it was from the Onion which is a joke journal.

[JAR]

Originally posted by RichardR
Breaking news: (http://www.theonion.com/onion3923/index.html)


;)
RichardR, the article you have quoted from is in the Onion. The Onion is a joke news source. You should have specified that in your message.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by ssibal
I guess, if you consider having a defector tell you where everything is to be a good job of finding the weapons. The inspectors did find some stuff but they were prepared to end inspections when it was revealed that there was plenty they did not find.
Why is it that the US can't use that defector to help them find weapons.

Where was it "revealed" that there were plenty they did not find? By whom? Another defector? If it was revealed, then why haven't they found them. It appears our defector is defective.;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by JAR

RichardR, the article you have quoted from is in the Onion. The Onion is a joke news source. You should have specified that in your message.
Oops. Better read it more carefully next time. :D

[JAR]

I think you people who think there were no weapons of mass destruction in Saddam's possession when Colin Powell said there were, will look back at your younger days and say, "Why did we think there was a conspiracy going on in the democratic U.S. government and not think there was one going on in the totalitarian Iraqi government?"

[RichardR]

Originally posted by JAR
RichardR, the article you have quoted from is in the Onion. The Onion is a joke news source. You should have specified that in your message. The link was there. :)

[RichardR]

Originally posted by JAR
I think you people who think there were no weapons of mass destruction in Saddam's possession when Colin Powell said there were, will look back at your younger days and say, "Why did we think there was a conspiracy going on in the democratic U.S. government and not think there was one going on in the totalitarian Iraqi government?" I think I'll look back and realize the above is a false dilemma.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by ssibal


Well, there was that rule about interviewing scientists outside of the country with their families and with no Iraqi observers. Iraq did not allow that. Then there was the matter of Iraq cooperating "cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively." Once again, that did not happen.

Did you actually follow anything to do with the war? The scientists were the ones who refused to be interviewed without government officials.

Once again, you fail to show me anything except more "opinions"...

Care to back things up with some facts?

Yes, I know Blix talked about Iraq cooperating but they were not required to merely cooperate. They were supposed to cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively. If you read Blix's reports he indicates that they were not cooperating under those guidelines.

I already showed in other threads that Iraq was cooperating using actual reports by Blix and all we have is your word to say otherwise. Can you provide some proper evidence?

I am not trying to push any burden of proof onto Iraq. Iraq is responsible for the claims that they made so the burden of proof is on them. They claimed that they destroyed the WMD when asked what happened to them so it is up to them to provide evidence of their destruction (once again Blix wanted the evidence of their destruction). The fact that the U.S. claimed that Iraq had WMD is irrelevant to Iraq's claim. The fact that there was no empirical evidence to support the claims of the U.S. does not relieve Iraq of the burden of proving its own claim (that they destroyed their WMD).

Pushing burden of proof onto Iraq is exactly what you're doing.. Stop squirming so much, it's pretty obvious to everyone.

See above.
Once again, they are two separate claims and it does not matter who made the claim first. The U.S. not providing evidence to support their claim does not relive Iraq of its obligation to provide evidence to support its claim.

I think you'd be better suited to believer boards because lack of proof of non-existence to a believer means it exists.

You're asking Iraq to prove the WMD's don't exist while you're forgetting U.S. made the claim they do. No amount of anyone here explaining that it's impossible to prove something does not exist seems to work.

I think the word kook suits you pretty well at this point.

Uhm, he talks about how they were not cooperating actively and yes he does mention their failure to provide evidence to support their claims that they destroyed their WMD.
He does???? Where???? Again, no evidence just more words...

And now I'm going to provide evidence that Iraq was cooperating and in fact attempted providing evidence for destruction of WMD's even though the burden of proof was on U.S.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/S-2003-580.pdf

[ImpyTimpy]

What a load of bulls**t, but I expect no different from you. No evidence, just words.

The inspections ended because of the war on Iraq, prior to that large quantities of any (not WMD's but any) banned items were destroyed under U.N. supervision or evidence was shown of their destruction.

Once again, here's the link:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/S-2003-580.pdf


Originally posted by ssibal


I guess, if you consider having a defector tell you where everything is to be a good job of finding the weapons. The inspectors did find some stuff but they were prepared to end inspections when it was revealed that there was plenty they did not find.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

Did you actually follow anything to do with the war? The scientists were the ones who refused to be interviewed without government officials.

No, I did not follow anything to do with the war......:rolleyes: But whether the scientists personally refused to be interviewd without government officials or they were ordered to refuse makes no difference.
From 1441:
and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government
It was up to the inspectors to determine whether or not a government official was present, not up to the Iraqi government, not up to the scientists. The inspectors wanted interviews without Iraqi officials present as required under 1441, they did not get it. To claim that it was not a violation because the scientists refused is like saying that not letting inspectors into a site is not a violation because it was the doorman that refused to let them in.


I already showed in other threads that Iraq was cooperating using actual reports by Blix and all we have is your word to say otherwise. Can you provide some proper evidence?


Did you bother reading what you quoted? I stated Iraq was not merely required to cooperate, they had to cooperate a certain way ("immediately, unconditionally, and actively "), which they did not and Blix explained in his reports. Here are a few quotes:
While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. I hope this attitude will change.
In that same report read the section regarding cooperation on substance, specifically addressing Iraq's declaration and what they still needed to do.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6

Now, in the next report, Blix mentions that Iraq has a "more active attitude" and that new information was being provided. Why wasn't this in the original declaration? Why did it take Blix's mentioning of their previous failure to provide information to provide more information? Do you consider that to be active and immediate cooperation?
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=382&sID=6

Next report, still the same story, here are some interesting quotes regarding Iraq's cooperation:
What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January.
Iraq was required to cooperate immediately and actively, but here Blix states that there was reluctant cooperation. This is not in accordance with 1441. Then there is this:
It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation.
Once again indication that Iraq was not cooperating like they were supposed to under 1441.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=414&sID=6

Oh and remember those al Samoud 2 missiles? Remember when Iraq was told to destroy them and they waited until the deadline to begin destroying them? Do you consider that to be active and immediate cooperation.

Pushing burden of proof onto Iraq is exactly what you're doing..

Iraq was asked what happened to those unaccounted for WMD and they responded with "we destroyed them ourselves." How is this pushing the burden of proof onto Iraq? Iraq claimed they destroyed those WMD, Iraq has to prove that they destroyed them. The U.S.'s claim that Iraq had WMD was unproven, so what? How does that exempt Iraq from proving its own claim? This thread is supposed to be about Iraq's claim not the U.S.'s. Stop trying to mold two separate claims into one. Iraq could have proven they destroyed the unaccounted for weapons while at the same time the U.S. could have proven that Iraq had WMD. You have set up a false dichotomy. Besides, Blix would disagree with you:
If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=382&sID=6

You're asking Iraq to prove the WMD's don't exist while you're forgetting U.S. made the claim they do. No amount of anyone here explaining that it's impossible to prove something does not exist seems to work.

Strawman. I am not asking Iraq to prove the WMDs do not exist, I am asking them to prove their claim that they destroyed the WMDs. I am not forgetting the claim of the U.S., it is a separate claim. Iraq could have provided the necessary sites, persons, documents...etc to prove they destroyed the weapons they claimed that they destroyed while at the same time the U.S. could have directed UN inspectors to a nuclear bomb based on information from a spy. Both Iraq and the U.S. would have proven their claims, it is possible because they are two separate claims. But once again, Blix disagrees with you:
It was the task of the Iraqi side to present items unaccounted for, if they existed, or to present evidence – records, documents or other – convincing the inspectors that the items do not exist.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=529&sID=6


He does???? Where???? Again, no evidence just more words...And now I'm going to provide evidence that Iraq was cooperating and in fact attempted providing evidence for destruction of WMD's even though the burden of proof was on U.S.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/S-2003-580.pdf

From Blix's final report:
In paragraph 11 we note that the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for has not been shortened by inspections or Iraqi declarations, explanations or documentation.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=529&sID=6
Iraq attempted to provide evidence and according to Blix they failed.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
The inspections ended because of the war on Iraq, prior to that large quantities of any (not WMD's but any) banned items were destroyed under U.N. supervision or evidence was shown of their destruction.

And your point is?

[JAR]

Originally posted by ssibal
And your point is?
ssibal, thanks for helping me out here. I don't read enough news articles to know what's wrong with all of the leftist conspiracy theories.

[ImpyTimpy]

First of all, are we discussing 1441 resolution itself, or Iraqi inspection process? Last time I checked I asked you to show me how Iraq wasn't cooperating to do with the inspection process....

Well done, you've managed to create a strawman.

Onto your points:

Originally posted by ssibal

No, I did not follow anything to do with the war......:rolleyes: But whether the scientists personally refused to be interviewd without government officials or they were ordered to refuse makes no difference.
From 1441:

It was up to the inspectors to determine whether or not a government official was present, not up to the Iraqi government, not up to the scientists. The inspectors wanted interviews without Iraqi officials present as required under 1441, they did not get it. To claim that it was not a violation because the scientists refused is like saying that not letting inspectors into a site is not a violation because it was the doorman that refused to let them in.

I'm sorry, I'm confused by your ramblings... So if the scientists themselves say we don't want to be interviewed, the U.N. inspectors must torture them in order to get them to agree? Great logic there...

Did you bother reading what you quoted? I stated Iraq was not merely required to cooperate, they had to cooperate a certain way ("immediately, unconditionally, and actively "), which they did not and Blix explained in his reports. Here are a few quotes:

In that same report read the section regarding cooperation on substance, specifically addressing Iraq's declaration and what they still needed to do.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6

Now, in the next report, Blix mentions that Iraq has a "more active attitude" and that new information was being provided. Why wasn't this in the original declaration? Why did it take Blix's mentioning of their previous failure to provide information to provide more information? Do you consider that to be active and immediate cooperation?
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=382&sID=6

Here's that strawman of yours.. Please show lack of cooperation to do with inspection process... That's what I asked you to provide evidence for.
Next report, still the same story, here are some interesting quotes regarding Iraq's cooperation:

Iraq was required to cooperate immediately and actively, but here Blix states that there was reluctant cooperation. This is not in accordance with 1441. Then there is this:

Is english a second language, because you seem to have misread your own quote. To translate Blix says he is surprised by the cooperation of Iraq given their previous history.

Again, we were discussing the inspection process.

Once again indication that Iraq was not cooperating like they were supposed to under 1441.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=414&sID=6

Oh and remember those al Samoud 2 missiles? Remember when Iraq was told to destroy them and they waited until the deadline to begin destroying them? Do you consider that to be active and immediate cooperation.

But they were destroyed and continued to be destroyed as you said.

Iraq was asked what happened to those unaccounted for WMD and they responded with "we destroyed them ourselves." How is this pushing the burden of proof onto Iraq? Iraq claimed they destroyed those WMD, Iraq has to prove that they destroyed them.

And guess what, that's what the inspection process was doing! And you still can't show how Iraq failed to cooperate during the inspection process.

The U.S.'s claim that Iraq had WMD was unproven, so what? How does that exempt Iraq from proving its own claim? This thread is supposed to be about Iraq's claim not the U.S.'s.

So what? I think you just showed your true colours.

And once again, the inspection process was to serve as proof that Iraq destroyed/didn't have WMD's.

Stop trying to mold two separate claims into one. Iraq could have proven they destroyed the unaccounted for weapons while at the same time the U.S. could have proven that Iraq had WMD. You have set up a false dichotomy. Besides, Blix would disagree with you:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=382&sID=6


And that's what Iraq was doing when undergoing the inspection process. Also the two things are tied together but you obviously want to pursue this "prove it doesn't exist" crap like a true kook without asking for proof of existence...

False dichotomy? Do you even understand what it is?


Strawman. I am not asking Iraq to prove the WMDs do not exist, I am asking them to prove their claim that they destroyed the WMDs. I am not forgetting the claim of the U.S., it is a separate claim. Iraq could have provided the necessary sites, persons, documents...etc to prove they destroyed the weapons they claimed that they destroyed while at the same time the U.S. could have directed UN inspectors to a nuclear bomb based on information from a spy. Both Iraq and the U.S. would have proven their claims, it is possible because they are two separate claims. But once again, Blix disagrees with you:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=529&sID=6


I'm sorry, I must be confused, you're just asking to show something was destroyed, not that something isn't there right? My bad, I didn't realise that... :rolleyes:

As for Blix, nice job selectively quoting the article. You left out this part:


Although during the last month and a half of our inspections, the Iraqi side made considerable efforts to provide explanations, to begin inquiries and to undertake exploration and excavations, these efforts did not bring the answers needed before we withdrew.

So Iraq was cut short from providing the necessary evidence...


From Blix's final report:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=529&sID=6
Iraq attempted to provide evidence and according to Blix they failed.

Blix never stated that. To say so is a lie but I expect no different from you.

[ImpyTimpy]

My point is I'm dispelling the lies you're telling...

You said:

The inspectors did find some stuff but they were prepared to end inspections when it was revealed that there was plenty they did not find

Which was a lie and I showed it to be so... Carry on kook.

Originally posted by ssibal


And your point is?

[ImpyTimpy]

What conspiracy theories? Also are you saying you just make stories up as you go along without checking up the necessary facts?

Originally posted by JAR

ssibal, thanks for helping me out here. I don't read enough news articles to know what's wrong with all of the leftist conspiracy theories.

[JAR]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
What conspiracy theories? Also are you saying you just make stories up as you go along without checking up the necessary facts?
The temptation to buy into the leftist conspiracy theories is overwhelming. But there is hope. I just keep reminding myself that Saddam had a chance to show that those vans didn't have chemical weapons and he didn't.

[ImpyTimpy]

Leftist conspiracy theories?? What the hell are you smoking son. Next you'll be quoting JK as a reliable source of information.

**EDITED TO ADD**

Ok, I just noticed this in another thread


In my opinion, Jedi Knight is correct quite often. One example is the debate over whether Iraq secretely owned weapons of mass destruction. Jedi Knight said that Iraq did. I agree with him.

Carry on... Jedi could use some support here, he's already the JREF clown so why not join the circus eh Jar?

Originally posted by JAR

The temptation to buy into the leftist conspiracy theories is overwhelming. But there is hope. I just keep reminding myself that Saddam had a chance to show that those vans didn't have chemical weapons and he didn't.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
First of all, are we discussing 1441 resolution itself, or Iraqi inspection process? Last time I checked I asked you to show me how Iraq wasn't cooperating to do with the inspection process....

Well done, you've managed to create a strawman.


Sorry, you are the only one that has created a strawman. We are supposed to be discussing the inspections under the guidlines provided by 1441. You asked me to show you how Iraq was not cooperating with the inspection process, the problem is I never claimed that Iraq was not cooperating. I will say it again, Iraq was not cooperating under the guidlines put forth under 1441. There is a difference.


I'm sorry, I'm confused by your ramblings... So if the scientists themselves say we don't want to be interviewed, the U.N. inspectors must torture them in order to get them to agree? Great logic there...

Great job of putting words into my mouth. I did not say or imply that. If the scientists do not want to be interviewed it is a violation of 1441, period. Meaning that Iraq was not cooperating with the inspections like they were supposed to under 1441.


Here's that strawman of yours.. Please show lack of cooperation to do with inspection process... That's what I asked you to provide evidence for.

I never claimed Iraq did not cooperate so I will show no such thing. My claim is they did not cooperate according to the guidelines set forth under 1441.

Is english a second language, because you seem to have misread your own quote. To translate Blix says he is surprised by the cooperation of Iraq given their previous history.

Actually, english is my second language. Regardless, there is no indication that he is referring to Iraq's cooperation during the first round of inspections. He specifically stated "since the end of January" which makes no sense if he was talking about the first round of inspections since the second round began in December.

Again, we were discussing the inspection process.

The inspection process under 1441.


But they were destroyed and continued to be destroyed as you said.

So? My point is that Iraq's cooperation concerning the destruction of the missiles was not in accordance with 1441. Rather than immediately destroying the missiles when they were told to, they waited the full period up to the deadline that they had to begin destroying them. That is not active or immediate cooperation as was required under 1441.

And guess what, that's what the inspection process was doing! And you still can't show how Iraq failed to cooperate during the inspection process.


I have shown an instance where they failed to cooperate (interviews with scientists). Regardless, my claim is that they were not cooperating according to 1441 (immediately, unconditionally, and actively).

So what? I think you just showed your true colours.

And once again, the inspection process was to serve as proof that Iraq destroyed/didn't have WMD's.

Two separate claims. Even Blix stated on more than one occasion that Iraq had to provide evidence that they destroyed the weapons.


And that's what Iraq was doing when undergoing the inspection process. Also the two things are tied together but you obviously want to pursue this "prove it doesn't exist" crap like a true kook without asking for proof of existence...

That is what Iraq was TRYING to do, they never did. The only thing I am pursuing here is "prove you destroyed the weapons," which is what this thread is supposed to be about.




I'm sorry, I must be confused, you're just asking to show something was destroyed, not that something isn't there right? My bad, I didn't realise that... :rolleyes:

So was Blix:
If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=382&sID=6
It was the task of the Iraqi side to present items unaccounted for, if they existed, or to present evidence - records, documents or other - convincing the inspectors that the items do not exist.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=529&sID=6

As for Blix, nice job selectively quoting the article. You left out this part:

So Iraq was cut short from providing the necessary evidence...

Hardly, Iraq was required to provide it immediately under 1441. Blix saying that the last month and a half Iraq made considerable efforts implies that during the first month and a half they were not.



Blix never stated that. To say so is a lie but I expect no different from you.

All I have to say to that is:
In paragraph 11 we note that the long list of proscribed items
unaccounted for has not been shortened by inspections or Iraqi
declarations, explanations or documentation.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=529&sID=6
The items are STILL unaccounted for.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
My point is I'm dispelling the lies you're telling...
You said:
Which was a lie and I showed it to be so... Carry on kook.



You did not dispel anything. I did not make a claim as to why the inspections ended and I did not claim that the UN did not find and destroy banned items. But any excuse to use the word 'kook' in a post......

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by ssibal

Sorry, you are the only one that has created a strawman. We are supposed to be discussing the inspections under the guidlines provided by 1441. You asked me to show you how Iraq was not cooperating with the inspection process, the problem is I never claimed that Iraq was not cooperating. I will say it again, Iraq was not cooperating under the guidlines put forth under 1441. There is a difference.

Ok kook, Iraq was not cooperating fully initially but as the inspection process built up speed so did Iraq's cooperation increase. The 1441 isn't one single word, it's a set of guidelines for Iraq to disarm.

If you selectively quote parts and pick things as seems to be your modus operandi, sure, you can say Iraq failed to cooperate under 1441. When you look at the whole picture you can make no such claim.


Great job of putting words into my mouth. I did not say or imply that. If the scientists do not want to be interviewed it is a violation of 1441, period. Meaning that Iraq was not cooperating with the inspections like they were supposed to under 1441.


You said it didn't matter whether the scientists themselves refused or not. I ask again, how do you intend to force them to talk to inspectors if the scientists themselves say they refuse unless supervised?

I never claimed Iraq did not cooperate so I will show no such thing. My claim is they did not cooperate according to the guidelines set forth under 1441.

Which is something you can not show either, unless you take the initial slow cooperation (which is debatable) and throw away everything that happened after, but hey, let's not get facts involved.

Actually, english is my second language. Regardless, there is no indication that he is referring to Iraq's cooperation during the first round of inspections. He specifically stated "since the end of January" which makes no sense if he was talking about the first round of inspections since the second round began in December.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise Iraq failed to cooperate at all under 1441. Oh, that's right, you can't show it so you're sticking to "they didn't start at full throttle so whole inspection process was useless".. Keep going..

The inspection process under 1441.

What about the inspection process?

So? My point is that Iraq's cooperation concerning the destruction of the missiles was not in accordance with 1441. Rather than immediately destroying the missiles when they were told to, they waited the full period up to the deadline that they had to begin destroying them. That is not active or immediate cooperation as was required under 1441.

There was some discussion as to whether the missiles were permitted or not, even though Iraq considered them to be fine, they still destroyed them. Which was a bad idea considering U.S. invaded short time after.

I have shown an instance where they failed to cooperate (interviews with scientists). Regardless, my claim is that they were not cooperating according to 1441 (immediately, unconditionally, and actively).

That claim is only valid if 1441 only contained one word - Iraq must disarm immediately, uncoditionally and actively... Problem for you is it doesn't.

As for scientists, you showed no such thing, rather the scientists themselves didn't wish to be interviewed. What was Iraq or inspectors supposed to do? Hold them at gun point?


Two separate claims. Even Blix stated on more than one occasion that Iraq had to provide evidence that they destroyed the weapons.

And once again - this was to be accomplished through inspection process.

That is what Iraq was TRYING to do, they never did. The only thing I am pursuing here is "prove you destroyed the weapons," which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

Which is what was being shown through the inspection process... This is getting tiresome.


So was Blix:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=382&sID=6

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=529&sID=6

Hardly, Iraq was required to provide it immediately under 1441. Blix saying that the last month and a half Iraq made considerable efforts implies that during the first month and a half they were not.

That's a false dichotomy:

A and B are mutually exclusive
A is true
Therefore B must be inverse of A

Understand it now?


All I have to say to that is:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=529&sID=6
The items are STILL unaccounted for.
Because the inspection process was ended prematurely.

Geez, I'm repeating the same things here.

[ImpyTimpy]

Liar!

The inspectors did find some stuff but they were prepared to end inspections when it was revealed that there was plenty they did not find

There you are, for everyone to see, your own words. Carry on kook.

Originally posted by ssibal


You did not dispel anything. I did not make a claim as to why the inspections ended and I did not claim that the UN did not find and destroy banned items. But any excuse to use the word 'kook' in a post......

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

Ok kook, Iraq was not cooperating fully initially but as the inspection process built up speed so did Iraq's cooperation increase. The 1441 isn't one single word, it's a set of guidelines for Iraq to disarm.

But under 1441 they were supposed to cooperate fully immediately, not start off slow and slowly increase cooperation.

If you selectively quote parts and pick things as seems to be your modus operandi, sure, you can say Iraq failed to cooperate under 1441. When you look at the whole picture you can make no such claim.

I disagree.


You said it didn't matter whether the scientists themselves refused or not. I ask again, how do you intend to force them to talk to inspectors if the scientists themselves say they refuse unless supervised?

I would not intend to force anything, I would have ended the inspection process right there since it would be pretty useless to continue without being able to interview scientists under the guidlines of 1441.


Which is something you can not show either, unless you take the initial slow cooperation (which is debatable) and throw away everything that happened after, but hey, let's not get facts involved.

Yes, like those facts that Iraq's cooperation was supposed to be immediate and active (which it was not), that the inspectors were unable to interview most scientists they wanted to under the 1441 guidlines.


I'm sorry, I didn't realise Iraq failed to cooperate at all under 1441. Oh, that's right, you can't show it so you're sticking to "they didn't start at full throttle so whole inspection process was useless".. Keep going..

Read 1441, they were supposed to be immediately and actively cooperate, they did not. Most of the interviews with scientists did not happen because they refused. Furthermore, 1441 was their final opportunity.


That claim is only valid if 1441 only contained one word - Iraq must disarm immediately, uncoditionally and actively... Problem for you is it doesn't.

Problem for you is that it states that Iraq had to cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively.

As for scientists, you showed no such thing, rather the scientists themselves didn't wish to be interviewed. What was Iraq or inspectors supposed to do? Hold them at gun point?

They should have ended inspections because Iraq was in blatant violation 1441. Inspections do not work if you cannot talk to the scientists, for whatever reason.


And once again -this was to be accomplished through inspection process

So, does this mean that you no longer think it is ridiculous for Iraq to have had to prove that they destroyed the weapons just as Blix said they had to?


Which is what was being shown through the inspection process... This is getting tiresome.

Here you say it was being shown but later you say it was not "because the inspection process ended prematurely." So, was is it?


That's a false dichotomy:

A and B are mutually exclusive
A is true
Therefore B must be inverse of A

Understand it now?

So, does that mean that Iraq was also making considerable efforts during the first month and a half?

Because the inspection process was ended prematurely.
Geez, I'm repeating the same things here.

Maybe, I guess we will never know. Though, Iraq was supposed to provide the evidence immediately.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Liar!



There you are, for everyone to see, your own words. Carry on kook.



Thanks but it was already in this thread for everyone to see. I still fail to see how my statement made any claim for why inspections ended or how it denied that the UN inspectors found and destroyed banned items. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills need some work.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by ssibal


But under 1441 they were supposed to cooperate fully immediately, not start off slow and slowly increase cooperation.

Once again, this is only a part of the 1441 resolution. I'm not sure how many times I have to say it, maybe when you read the actual resolution you'll understand.. Here it is:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf

And in case you can't be bothered reading:


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

Also


Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted
by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with,
and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a
further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for
assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

Also


11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General
of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with
inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament
obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for
full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure
international peace and security;


I disagree.

That's because you're only looking at section 5 of resolution 1441... Read the rest of it.

I would not intend to force anything, I would have ended the inspection process right there since it would be pretty useless to continue without being able to interview scientists under the guidlines of 1441.

You obviously have not read 1441 if you intend to claim that. I gave you the link, read up on it and educate yourself.

Yes, like those facts that Iraq's cooperation was supposed to be immediate and active (which it was not), that the inspectors were unable to interview most scientists they wanted to under the 1441 guidlines.

Interviews with scientists is only part of 1441 and FYI Iraq said U.N. inspectors are free to interview their scientists (which is complying under 1441) - scientists were the ones who requested government officials.

Read 1441, they were supposed to be immediately and actively cooperate, they did not. Most of the interviews with scientists did not happen because they refused. Furthermore, 1441 was their final opportunity.

Iraq didn't refuse the interviews, scientists themselves did. Look, I gave you the actual 1441 text, would you please read it now? Section 5 is the section which refers to immediate cooperation. Section 5 is not the entire 1441 resolution.

You do know you're making a fallacy of composition don't you?


Problem for you is that it states that Iraq had to cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively.


Look above and from now on I'm going to say fallacy of composition. Section 5 is only a part of the document, you can't say because it says A, whole document is means A.


They should have ended inspections because Iraq was in blatant violation 1441. Inspections do not work if you cannot talk to the scientists, for whatever reason.

That's utter rubbish.

So, does this mean that you no longer think it is ridiculous for Iraq to have had to prove that they destroyed the weapons just as Blix said they had to?

I think it is unnecessary for Iraq to show the evidence considering U.S. made the claim first.

Here you say it was being shown but later you say it was not "because the inspection process ended prematurely." So, was is it?

It was being shown but the inspection process couldn't be completed.

It was in the process of being shown, however the process was ended abruptly.

Do you understand now?

So, does that mean that Iraq was also making considerable efforts during the first month and a half?

Still using a false dichotomy...

Maybe, I guess we will never know. Though, Iraq was supposed to provide the evidence immediately.
Read 1441 fully, not just section 5.

[ImpyTimpy]

Squirm away, but you've just being proven to be a liar.

The inspectors did find some stuff but they were prepared to end inspections when it was revealed that there was plenty they did not find

You claim that inspectors were going to leave Iraq because it was revealed that there was plenty they couldn't find.

That's a lie since inspectors were told to get out of Iraq because of the war, not because "it was revealed that there was plenty they did not" find.

Now I need to ask, are you really that thick that when you write something, you see a completely different sentence?

Originally posted by ssibal


Thanks but it was already in this thread for everyone to see. I still fail to see how my statement made any claim for why inspections ended or how it denied that the UN inspectors found and destroyed banned items. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills need some work.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

Interviews with scientists is only part of 1441 and FYI Iraq said U.N. inspectors are free to interview their scientists (which is complying under 1441) - scientists were the ones who requested government officials.

And? A violation is a violation whether it is because of the Iraqi government secretly telling the scientists not to interview without an official or the scientists just being stubborn or paranoid.


Iraq didn't refuse the interviews, scientists themselves did. Look, I gave you the actual 1441 text, would you please read it now? Section 5 is the section which refers to immediate cooperation. Section 5 is not the entire 1441 resolution.

You do know you're making a fallacy of composition don't you?

That is like saying that because you did not break most of the rules in the rulebook, you are not in violation of the rules.


Look above and from now on I'm going to say fallacy of composition. Section 5 is only a part of the document, you can't say because it says A, whole document is means A.

A violation in one section (arguably the most important since Blix spent most of his reports talking about Iraqi cooperation) is a violation of 1441.


That's utter rubbish.


Is it? Are you saying inspections can work well without interviewing scientists? Why even bother having 1441 if it is alright to not follow its guidlines? Hey it just says it is up to the sole discretion of the UN how they want interviews with scientists to be conducted but since the scientists do not like the rules they can let that rule slip by.

I think it is unnecessary for Iraq to show the evidence considering U.S. made the claim first.

Well, Blix did not.


Still using a false dichotomy...

Right....now care to answer the question? Does that mean that Iraq was also making considerable efforts during the first month and a half?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Squirm away, but you've just being proven to be a liar.

You claim that inspectors were going to leave Iraq because it was revealed that there was plenty they couldn't find.

That's a lie since inspectors were told to get out of Iraq because of the war, not because "it was revealed that there was plenty they did not" find.

Now I need to ask, are you really that thick that when you write something, you see a completely different sentence?



I think it is you who sees a completely different sentence. I was trying to say that the inspectors were about to end inspections and then it was revealed that there was plenty they did not find. Obviously (at least in my opinion) I was referring to 1995. I thought the fact that I was talking about them finding new things because of a defector was a giveaway, a defector leading them to new items but you took my statement out of context. I admit it was worded ambiguously, but I guess you are more interested in calling people a liar or 'kook' than trying to understand what they are saying. You also called me a liar concerning the UN finding and destroying banned items when I clearly stated that the "inspectors did find some stuff." I think you need to calm down.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by ssibal

And? A violation is a violation whether it is because of the Iraqi government secretly telling the scientists not to interview without an official or the scientists just being stubborn or paranoid.

That is like saying that because you did not break most of the rules in the rulebook, you are not in violation of the rules.

[B]

A violation in one section (arguably the most important since Blix spent most of his reports talking about Iraqi cooperation) is a violation of 1441.

[B]

Is it? Are you saying inspections can work well without interviewing scientists? Why even bother having 1441 if it is alright to not follow its guidlines? Hey it just says it is up to the sole discretion of the UN how they want interviews with scientists to be conducted but since the scientists do not like the rules they can let that rule slip by.

[B]

Well, Blix did not.

[B]

Right....now care to answer the question? Does that mean that Iraq was also making considerable efforts during the first month and a half?
I don't know how many times I can repeat the same thing... Read 1441... It's not made up of single resolution, it is made up of many guidelines. Saying because one guideline wasn't followed through 100% at the start means the rest of the guidelines aren't worth looking at is a fallacy of composition.

You repeating the same mantra isn't going to change that.

For the last time, the facts.

1441 is a body of guidelines, not single resolution! Blix spoke at length of cooperation because that's what 1441 was about - attempt at peaceful disarmanent.

Iraq complied under 1441 by giving inspectors access to the scientists, it doesn't matter whether the scientists themselves said they don't want to be interviewed as long as officially Iraq said it was ok.

And saying either Iraq cooperated or not is a false dichotomy and I am not going to play into logical fallacies.

[ImpyTimpy]

This is just too funny...

Your back pedalling deserves a medal. Everything you said wasn't about the most recent inspections, it was about 1995!!!

Carry on kook.

:rolleyes:

P.S.

I never called you a liar about U.N. finding any banned items - that's a strawman you're trying to create.

Originally posted by ssibal


I think it is you who sees a completely different sentence. I was trying to say that the inspectors were about to end inspections and then it was revealed that there was plenty they did not find. Obviously (at least in my opinion) I was referring to 1995. I thought the fact that I was talking about them finding new things because of a defector was a giveaway, a defector leading them to new items but you took my statement out of context. I admit it was worded ambiguously, but I guess you are more interested in calling people a liar or 'kook' than trying to understand what they are saying. You also called me a liar concerning the UN finding and destroying banned items when I clearly stated that the "inspectors did find some stuff." I think you need to calm down.

[ssibal]

ImpyTimpy, regarding 1441 I guess we have to agree to disagree. We both have very different standards as to what constitutes a violation. Regarding my statement, I have already explained myself and the posts that lead up to that statement are there for you or anyone to review if you care to understand what I was trying to say. I only hope that you can behave in a more civil manner next time.