NationStates Jolt Archive

Declassified Pentagon report:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

Not the huge amounts that were anticipated or claimed, but 500 sarin and mustard shells is definitely WMD.

Just imagine what one sarin shell would do in a shopping mall or other enclosed space.

Not the huge amounts that were anticipated or claimed, but 500 sarin and mustard shells is definitely WMD.

LOLZ! thats nothing, most countries have that much as pocket change

All of Iraq's WMDs are actually in an underground bunker that exists under my house. My backyard hits a canyon, and along the slope there are steel entrances for illegal Iraqi workers, which look Mexican, so nobody suspects a thing! Shhh, don't tell Rumsfeld tho. Kthxbye!

Libs want a nuclear weapon and nothing less.

At this point in the argument, it'd take a Soviet Level Nuclear Weapons program to salvage anything. Not that Biologicals are safe but that's a not the spectre of "Nuclear Weapons".

Declassified Pentagon report:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

Not the huge amounts that were anticipated or claimed, but 500 sarin and mustard shells is definitely WMD.

Just imagine what one sarin shell would do in a shopping mall or other enclosed space.
And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces in the Gulf War? NONE

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces when they illegally invaded Iraq in 2003? NONE

Yet the US has used chemical weapons against Iraqis in both wars.

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm)

US used white phosphorus in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)

Give it up DK.

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces in the Gulf War? NONE

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces when they illegally invaded Iraq in 2003? NONE

Yet the US has used chemical weapons against Iraqis in both wars.

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm)

US used white phosphorus in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)

Give it up DK.
ownt

This was actually discussed on another forum I'm on. Basically, it boils down to this: this is old news (it says since 2003, 500 have been found) and the weapons aren't usable. The shells are useless and the material has degraded, too.

So, how long until someone bothered to read the thing?

Here is what is says:
The US has found about 500 shells with degraded mustard gas and sarin in them.
Despite their efforts, they admit that it is possible that some pre-Gulf War arsenals with shells like these may exist.
These arsenals could be found by various people and then sold on the Black Market inside and outside Iraq.
Sarin- and Mustard-filled projectiles are the most likely types.
Purity of such an agent depends on many things. They degrade over time, but can remain lethal.
The press has speculated that insurgents and terrorists might like something like these shells.

That is all. Old stocks of grenades, probably from the Iran-Iraq War, at any rate before the Gulf War that may still exist. Chances are that the Iraqi Military either lost count of them and couldn't find them (I hear the time during and directly after Desert Storm was pretty chaotic), or that they were considered to be no longer usable on the battlefield. That is because they were not used on the battlefield - if the Iraqi military would've had these weapons, they would've used them to try and avoid total defeat.

In either case, it is not a WMD program, it is not a "stockpile" as such, and it is not a reason for war.

Even the PotUS himself has admitted that there were no WMD and that he made a mistake. Why do some people insist on out-busheviking Bush?

Ok So....



And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces in the Gulf War? NONE

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces when they illegally invaded Iraq in 2003? NONE

Yet the US has used chemical weapons against Iraqis in both wars.

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm)

US used white phosphorus in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)

Give it up DK.

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces in the Gulf War? NONE

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces when they illegally invaded Iraq in 2003? NONE

Yet the US has used chemical weapons against Iraqis in both wars.

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm)

US used white phosphorus in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)

Give it up DK.

By that logic any weapon is a chemical weapon, since they all rely on the chemical reactions of explosives to work. Napalm and WP are incendiary weapons, nothing more, nothing less.

See: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/cw/cwindex.html

By that logic any weapon is a chemical weapon, since they all rely on the chemical reactions of explosives to work. Napalm and WP are incendiary weapons, nothing more, nothing less.
Not if they are used against civilians and combatants.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9956204&postcount=45

Not if they are used against civilians and combatants.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9956204&postcount=45

Only it wasn't used against civilians, your own source says that.

Only it wasn't used against civilians, your own source says that.
...against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians.
Pretty much applies here, I'd say.

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces in the Gulf War? NONE

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces when they illegally invaded Iraq in 2003? NONE

Yet the US has used chemical weapons against Iraqis in both wars.

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm)

US used white phosphorus in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)

Give it up DK.
Talk about absurd...
Sarin gas and mustard gas are not WMDs but napalm and white phosphorus are?

Yeah... sarin and mustard projectiles really sound like a rival to the atom bomb. :rolleyes:

Only it wasn't used against civilians, your own source says that.
Actually there were civilians trapped in Fallujah when the WP was used, so draw your own conclusions and in regards to the Gulf War, read up about the Highway of Death.

The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians.

Talk about absurd...
Sarin gas and mustard gas are not WMDs but napalm and white phosphorus are?
What was absurd was the US invasion of Iraq, on the pretext that Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the US because of WMD.

Not if they are used against civilians and combatants.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9956204&postcount=45
The target of the weapons have nothing to do with the type of weapon involved.

Using your argument, the use of nuclear weapons is ok if the targets are purely military. :rolleyes:

The target of the weapons have nothing to do with the type of weapon involved.

Using your argument, the use of nuclear weapons is ok if the targets are purely military. :rolleyes:
If you read that into my argument, then you aren't reading accurately.

Oh, there was definitely an immediate threat to the US!
Remember, just weeks before the invasion the weapons inspectors found missiles which violated the UN resolution. They had a range of 82 as opposed to 80 kms...well, if you launched it without a war head anyways! So there you got it: Saddam could have used those missiles, put the degraded mustard gas and sarin into them (the one that he didn't even use when his country was attacked), then dismantle the war head to increase the range and send them the whole 81 kms to the USA! Damn, that was close! Good thing the U.S. KICKED SOME BUTT!

And the guy who remarks that this degraded mustard gas and sarin could still do a lot of damage in a closed room refers to the threat terrorists sponsored by Saddam could have had to the USA. Oh wait, Osama didn't like Saddam - too secular. Hm. But they are there now, but wait, Saddam is jail - and that's since AFTER the invasion. But, but, but...they had those mobile chemical labs. Oh, no. Ok, but they tried to buy Uranium. Ahm, nope, that neither. Ahm...ahm...damnit. Just follow me, I'm the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. If I say they are a threat, then they are a threat! OK?

And if you don't follow, we :sniper: you! IN THE LAND OF THE FREE....

-snip-
What an excellent post for a new guy! Had the sniper in there and everything. :p

*nods head approvingly*

You're argument is convincing! I'm too new at NS to have an opinon.

Actually there were civilians trapped in Fallujah when the WP was used, so draw your own conclusions and in regards to the Gulf War, read up about the Highway of Death.

The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians.

In regards to the so-called "Highway of Death" the actual death toll was likely far lower than critics claim. It was a basically a gridlock and many Iraqi soldiers had already got out and left on foot, basically the US bombed a gridlock of empty cars. Even Rick Atkinson who's writing is usually tainted with a strong antiBush bias in regards to either Iraq War said this:

"I don't think we'll ever know how many Iraqis were killed there. There were about 1,500 vehicles on the highway of death, counted, destroyed vehicles after the war. And another 400 or so on another road, a spur that ran parallel to the coast. Those who wandered through this wreckage right after the Iraqi surrender found relatively few bodies. Certainly some, and many that were terribly incinerated of those that were found. But the prevailing view is that many of the Iraqis had simply gotten out of their vehicles and ran. And it's difficult to believe that deaths on the highway of death probably exceeded more than a couple of hundred perhaps."


As far as the use of WP in Falluja, most of the uses were for illumination purposes. The few times it was used on combatants were isolated cases used to burn out fighters holed up in fortified structures, hardly the indiscriminate bombardment you claim.

You're argument is convincing! I'm too new at NS to have an opinon.
Don't get excited, I agree with you.
But while your post count is below...say...2,500 you'll be a new guy. ;)

This was actually discussed on another forum I'm on. Basically, it boils down to this: this is old news (it says since 2003, 500 have been found) and the weapons aren't usable. The shells are useless and the material has degraded, too.

BS.

Mustard gas is good for 70 years plus. Go ask the french farmers who every now and then uncover some mustard gas left over from WW1-close to 90 years ago.

So I guess this stuff is so old and degraded you could use it to add some flavor to your ice cream? Mmmm! Mustard gas Ice cream flavoring! It's WMDs Saddam SAID HE DESTROYED all of them. He didn't. Would those 15-20 year old iraqi WMDs make any difference in Iraq or in NY?

Yeah... sarin and mustard projectiles really sound like a rival to the atom bomb. :rolleyes:

Detonate one above a city on unhardened civilian targets. I'd much rather deal with an A-bomb than mustard gas.

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces in the Gulf War? NONE

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces when they illegally invaded Iraq in 2003? NONE

Yet the US has used chemical weapons against Iraqis in both wars.

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm)

US used white phosphorus in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)

Give it up DK.

Hell CS gas is considered a chemical weapon. Russians used it on a hostage situation a while back. OMG!!11!!!

Napalm is effective, and it works, although we don't use it for that purpose anymore. And who cares if some of Iraq's dumbest got it on them? Not a problem with me.

In regards to the so-called "Highway of Death" the actual death toll was likely far lower than critics claim. It was a basically a gridlock and many Iraqi soldiers had already got out and left on foot, basically the US bombed a gridlock of empty cars. Even Rick Atkinson who's writing is usually tainted with a strong antiBush bias in regards to either Iraq War said this:
And somewhere between lies the truth? There are pictorials that I cannot link to because they would violate Forum rules. However, that doesn't prevent you from doing a little research?

As far as the use of WP in Falluja, most of the uses were for illumination purposes. The few times it was used on combatants were isolated cases used to burn out fighters holed up in fortified structures, hardly the indiscriminate bombardment you claim.
I guess it depends on your news sources?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Shocking+revelation+RAI+News+24&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

When you look at all the unwarranted civilian deaths in the Iraq war, due to the US invasion, I am surprised that DK would even open a thread such as this. Inevitably, it just makes the US look bad.

DK and others..these were not the weapons used partly to justify the invasion of Iraq..although they do prove the weapons inspectors ..missed a few things ...:rolleyes: and that saddam lied his ass off and was in violation of the cease fire aggreement ..:rolleyes: again...:rolleyes: for something else ..:rolleyes: :rolleyes: They are ONLY WMD's not the RIGHT WMD's but WMD's just the same .

let the left whiners and the bleating hearts run around as usual making excuses for terrorist and Saddam ...they have had enough practice and are getting really good at it..

Here's the thing...this is intel from TONS of captured documents that only 10 percent or less has been translated and declassified...there's 90 percent MORE little TIDBITS to come...say in like a month or two before the elections..just so all the Democrat cut and run cowards can be held up for the waffler's and idiots that they are ...can You Imagine KERRY after changing his mind so much he looks like the Excorcist ?

His fucking head is going to spin around so fast it may be the next Lunar lander...of course he'll change his mind again...along with his diaper. and he wont be the only one .

There's more than one reason bush has been walking around with that shit eating grin ..he knows that the bombs are not ready to drop but they will be comming...

Then all the BUSH LIED morons....what song will they sing next ?

Whats even better is they have enough stuff captured from Al Queda and Saddams regime to last all the way to 2008....maybe its not just because they failed to indict Rove for anything that he's been such a happy fella lately.

The Al Queda morons just reminded the American people..the average ones ..the ones that vote and the ones who's sons and daughters are willing to go to war to protect the US , exactly what type of animal we are attempting to exterminate...YOU do not butcher soldiers and expect Americans to cut and run...at least as long as Clinton is not president ...remember Mogadishu ? That punk ran so fast his shadow is still trying to catch up...The average american is still wondering how his balls shriveled so fast and are waiting for pay back that they expect from a leader.
Can you imagine Bush leaving Mogadishu ? Especially after the totally out numbered and overwhelmed forces kicked major ass and were just begging to be able to finish the job ?

Mogadishu gave the Al queda types the notion that americans are pussys and will not except brutality or casualties...thank you Clinton ....They forgot to notice that a Democrat was in office .

Get your crying game reved up..if your a Democrat and you are very lucky..maybe in 2012 you may actually stand a chance of not becoming a third party full of leftwing lunatics . Either that or you will learn about what America stands for and against and get with the program . Until then as long as the economy is humming along ...you are DOOMED . Hung by your own morons .

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces in the Gulf War? NONE

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces when they illegally invaded Iraq in 2003? NONE
Yet the US has used chemical weapons against Iraqis in both wars.

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm)

US used white phosphorus in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)

Give it up DK.

Both weapons mentioned above are not classified aschemical weapons, oh and one other point of fact the war was not as you put it illegal, it was aproved by the UN read UN resolution 1441.:headbang:

Both weapons mentioned above are not classified aschemical weapons, oh and one other point of fact the war was not as you put it illegal, it was aproved by the UN read UN resolution 1441.:headbang:

A resolution you clearly have not read, because it nowhere authorizes military action against Iraq.

And somewhere between lies the truth? There are pictorials that I cannot link to because they would violate Forum rules. However, that doesn't prevent you from doing a little research?


I guess it depends on your news sources?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Shocking+revelation+RAI+News+24&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

When you look at all the unwarranted civilian deaths in the Iraq war, due to the US invasion, I am surprised that DK would even open a thread such as this. Inevitably, it just makes the US look bad.


Of course... you being who you are..you would not except the reality .. that.. BECAUSE of the weapons and Doctrine of the US military and its proffesionalism and leadership...IRAQI civilians were largely spared the normal carnage that an invasion and a war with modern weapons will cause.
Thats why it only took 150,000 troops to CONQUER a country of 26 million souls and thats why they are fighting a TINY insurgency ..with ONLY 160,000 at the top level of deployment , troops.
A normal war would have the whole country looking to shoot American bastards for blowing up the place and killing everything that moves or breathes.
Is it because of lack of education that you seem to be unable to do the simple math ? Or is it your indoctrination that refuses to let you see simple facts .
Hmmm kinda makes you wonder .

Whats your explanation for the ability of 150,000 troops to not only stay alive ...but be effective and largely in controll of an entire country of 26 million Iraqi's ?

Not to mention a few elections ..a constitution...a coalition government representative of ALL factions in Iraq...and a growing and largely effective Iraqi military and police force...Along with Saddam in a cage making faces ..and a few generations of dead jihadist ?

Why is it you so conveniently ingnore all this ?

A resolution you clearly have not read, because it nowhere authorizes military action against Iraq.
It is scary as to what some people think is the truth?

A resolution you clearly have not read, because it nowhere authorizes military action against Iraq.

Your wrong...Look it up I clearly states that force can be used if the government of Iraq does not cooperate freely with and does not obstruct WMD inspectors in any way, they impeeded and obstructed so they were taken out....Read the entier resolution.

Your wrong...Look it up I clearly states that force can be used if the government of Iraq does not cooperate freely with and does not obstruct WMD inspectors in any way, they impeeded and obstructed so they were taken out....Read the entier resolution.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

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

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

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

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

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

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

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

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;

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

4. 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;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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;

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

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.





This one ?

Or this more important one ...for those that keep forgeting WHY we are in Iraq.

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Of course... you being who you are..you would not except the reality .. that.. BECAUSE of the weapons and Doctrine of the US military and its proffesionalism and leadership...IRAQI civilians were largely spared the normal carnage that an invasion and a war with modern weapons will cause.
Thats why it only took 150,000 troops to CONQUER a country of 26 million souls and thats why they are fighting a TINY insurgency ..with ONLY 160,000 at the top level of deployment , troops.
A normal war would have the whole country looking to shoot American bastards for blowing up the place and killing everything that moves or breathes.
Is it because of lack of education that you seem to be unable to do the simple math ? Or is it your indoctrination that refuses to let you see simple facts .
Hmmm kinda makes you wonder .

Whats your explanation for the ability of 150,000 troops to not only stay alive ...but be effective and largely in controll of an entire country of 26 million Iraqi's ?

Not to mention a few elections ..a constitution...a coalition government representative of ALL factions in Iraq...and a growing and largely effective Iraqi military and police force...Along with Saddam in a cage making faces ..and a few generations of dead jihadist ?

Why is it you so conveniently ingnore all this ?
What you seem to ignore is that the US had no right to invade Iraq. The death toll should be zero.

BTW, the US has not conquered Iraq.

As I stated before, it is threads like this that make the US look bad.

I guess you are part of the shrinking minority that think that Bush is doing a good job in handling the War in Iraq?

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Your wrong...Look it up I clearly states that force can be used if the government of Iraq does not cooperate freely with and does not obstruct WMD inspectors in any way, they impeeded and obstructed so they were taken out....Read the entier resolution.

Ok sorry 1441 was not the resolution authorizing the invasion, it was a add-on to several other resolutions against Iraq, it was the intent of 1441 to make Iraq comply with these other resolutions the use of force was authorized in them if compliance was not met. These resolutions were 687,661,678,686,687.688,707,715,986 and 1284.

What you seem to ignore is that the US had no right to invade Iraq. The death toll should be zero.

BTW, the US has not conquered Iraq.

As I stated before, it is threads like this that make the US look bad.

I guess you are part of the shrinking minority that think that Bush is doing a good job in handling the War in Iraq?

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

I guess you should read the post above yours...the US had every right and Iraq has not only been conquered but its under a new DEMOCRATICLY elected government and has a Constitution ratified byTHE PEOPLE of IRAQ .
the US is there until the Iraqi army can protect the country and the police can do there job...the Iraqi PEOPLE have turned against the insugency and are ratting them out faster then we and the Iraqi army can kill them .

Ok sorry 1441 was not the resolution authorizing the invasion, it was a add-on to several other resolutions against Iraq, it was the intent of 1441 to make Iraq comply with these other resolutions the use of force was authorized in them if compliance was not met. These resolutions were 687,661,678,686,687.688,707,715,986 and 1284.

Don't you think that if the intent of the authors of 1441 was to authorize force, they would have said so, instead of saying that they would "convene immediately to consider the situation" if Iraq violated its terms?

Or this more important one ...for those that keep forgeting WHY we are in Iraq.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

OOPS!!

This is what John Kerry referred to about Bush's abuse of executive powers.

The UN inspectors were still in Iraq for crying out loud.

Ok sorry 1441 was not the resolution authorizing the invasion, it was a add-on to several other resolutions against Iraq, it was the intent of 1441 to make Iraq comply with these other resolutions the use of force was authorized in them if compliance was not met. These resolutions were 687,661,678,686,687.688,707,715,986 and 1284.


This is what the US used to justify .....

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';



All nice and legal and JUSTIFIED by the US congress who voted ...I might add ....OVERWHELMINGLY for it .

Here is some things in regards to the resolution, the nation of Iraq was in material breach of the resolution (1441) as well as the other mentioned, thus the use of force was authorized in accordance with the Un resolutions that came before 1441, and 1441 was just the trigger.

The United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1441 (November 8, 2002), unanimously deplored Iraq's lack of compliance with Resolution 687 (1991) on inspection, disarmament and renunciation of terrorism in Iraq, and went on to make several decisions under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. Resolution 687, like Resolution 1441, was adopted under Chapter VII. Chapter VII gives the Council the authority to determine the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, and to take action accordingly.

In paragraph 1 of Resolution 1441, the Council decided that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations" under relevant resolutions, including Resolution 687, in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with authorized inspectors and its failure to disarm in several respects, including destroying all chemical and biological weapons and placing all of its nuclear-weapons-usable materials under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Council decided to afford Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions." Resolution 1441 then sets up an enhanced inspection regime and orders Iraq to submit "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems . . . ." Inspections are to be conducted by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the IAEA. Iraq is directed to provide UNMOVIC and IAEA unimpeded access to any and all areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records and means of transport that they wish to inspect, as well as unimpeded and private access to all officials and other persons they wish to interview. The resolution affirms that it is binding on Iraq and demands that Iraq confirm within seven days its intention to comply fully with it. Iraq has reluctantly done so.

In paragraph 4 of Resolution 1441, the Council "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." Paragraph 11 directs the heads of UNMOVIC and IAEA to report immediately to the Council any Iraqi interference with inspection activities, as well as any Iraqi failure to comply with its disarmament obligations. Paragraph 12 decides that the Security Council will "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." Finally, paragraph 13 says that "the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." [1] The phrase "serious consequences" has been widely understood to include the use of armed force.

The U.N. Charter obligates all member states to comply with Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter VII. Consequently, such resolutions are similar to (but not exactly the same as) multilateral treaties in that they are binding instruments under international law. The language of "material breach" in Resolution 1441 is keyed to Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is the authoritative statement of international law regarding material breaches of treaties. Under Article 60 of the Vienna Convention, a material breach is an unjustified repudiation of a treaty or the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of a treaty. Article 60 provides that a party specially affected by a material breach of a multilateral treaty may invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting state. Article 60 also provides that any non-breaching party may suspend the operation of a multilateral treaty if the treaty is of such a character that a material breach by one party "radically changes the position of every party with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty."

When the Security Council asserted in paragraph 1 of Resolution 1441 that Iraq is in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including Resolution 687, it appears to have treated those resolutions as being sufficiently like multilateral treaties to be subject to Article 60 of the Vienna Convention. Alternatively, since the U.N. Charter says that Security Council decisions embodied in Chapter VII resolutions are binding on all members, a material breach of such a resolution by a U.N. member state (such as Iraq) would be a material breach of the Charter itself. Since the Charter is a multilateral treaty, Article 60 of the Vienna Convention would apply directly to any material breach of it.

Security Council Resolution 687, adopted at the end of the Gulf War, includes a provision declaring a formal cease-fire between Iraq, Kuwait and the member states (such as the United States) cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with Resolution 678 (1990). Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area, and thus provided the basis under international law for the allies' military action in the Gulf War. The determination in Resolution 1441 that Iraq is already in material breach of its obligations under Resolution 687 provides a basis for the decision in paragraph 4 (above) of Resolution 1441 that any further lack of cooperation by Iraq will be a further material breach. If Iraq, having confirmed its intention to comply with Resolution 1441, then fails to cooperate fully with the inspectors, it would open the way to an argument by any specially affected state that it could suspend the operation of the cease-fire provision in Resolution 687 and rely again on Resolution 678. It might also invite an argument that any party to the U.N. Charter could suspend the operation of the cease-fire provision because the material breach would pose a threat to international peace and security and would therefore radically change the position of all U.N. member states under Resolution 687. The argument would point out that the breach would relate to weapons or materials capable of mass destruction that, if put to use, could have an impact not just on regional security, but on worldwide security.

The United States could argue that it is a specially affected state because it is the most prominent target of terrorism, and Iraq's noncooperation presumably would stem from its intent to develop or retain terrorist capabilities that would likely be directed at U.S. interests. Some other states could be expected to argue, though, that Resolutions 678 and 687 were aimed primarily at neutralizing any viable threat of Iraqi military action directed against other Middle Eastern states, so a violation of Resolution 687 and related resolutions would not "specially affect" the United States. But if the violation poses a broad threat to international peace and security, the United States (and any other like-minded state) might assert that every U.N. member state's position under Resolution 687 has been radically changed, as outlined above. The counter-argument would be that even if the breach constitutes a threat to the peace, it would not radically change the position of "every party" to the U.N. Charter with respect to its obligations under the resolution.

In any event, the terms of Resolution 1441, paragraph 4 (above), make it clear that a failure of Iraq to cooperate, if reported to the Security Council, would not justify either the United States' or any other state's unilateral suspension of the cease-fire provision without giving the Security Council an opportunity to consider the situation and to act under paragraph 12. Resolution 1441, however, does not specify what is to happen if the Security Council convenes under paragraph 12, but does not take action or only takes action that some states, in particular a specially affected state, do not consider adequate under the circumstances. Nor does Resolution 1441 specify what is to happen if a specially affected state at some point concludes that Iraq is not cooperating fully, but the inspectors disagree and thus do not at that point contemplate making a report to the Council under paragraph 4. In such circumstances, the United States and its allies could argue that a material breach has occurred and nothing stands in the way of their suspension of the cease-fire that was based on Resolution 687. They would further argue that, since Resolution 678 (the resolution that authorized member states to take action against Iraq in the first place) has never been rescinded, it provides continuing authority to use "all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area."

Other states could argue that since the Security Council has decided in Resolution 1441 that certain conduct by Iraq amounts to a material breach, but the Council did not at the same time suspend its own cease-fire and instead decided to give Iraq another chance to comply with its obligations under Resolution 687, only the Council can decide later that Iraq has not cooperated fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441 and that the cease-fire consequently is no longer in force. For example, the representative of Mexico (a current member of the Security Council) said after the vote on Resolution 1441 that the use of force is only valid as a last resort and with prior, explicit authorization from the Council. Mexico does not stand alone in taking that position. It is based on the Charter-based principle that disputes should be settled peacefully, and that only the Security Council can determine when there is a need for coercion. It would be argued that, in light of the emphasis in the Charter on peaceful dispute settlement, Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so.

There is some support for the position of Mexico and like-minded states, stemming from the negotiating history of Resolution 1441. The U.S. draft resolution, in paragraph 12 on the reconvening of the Security Council upon receipt of a report of Iraqi noncompliance, said that the purpose would be "to restore international peace and security." As noted above, paragraph 12 as adopted by the Council says that the purpose is "to secure international peace and security." The substitution of "secure" for "restore" departs not only from the language proposed by the United States, but also from the language quoted above from Resolution 678. It could imply that the situation now is not the same as it was in 1990, when Resolution 678 was adopted.

The position of Mexico and like-minded states does not regard paragraph 13 of Resolution 1441 (repeating the Council's warnings to Iraq that it will face "serious consequences" as a result of its continued violations of its obligations) as an explicit authorization of the use of force. The United States might reply that paragraph 13 does authorize the use of force if the Security Council fails to achieve its goals in Iraq, because of the widespread understanding of what is meant by "serious consequences." Paragraph 13, however, is in the form of a reminder rather than an authorization for action.

Finally, the United States government has argued, wholly apart from Resolution 1441, that it has a right of pre-emptive self defense to protect itself from terrorism fomented by Iraq. For discussion of pre-emptive self-defense in the terrorism context, see the ASIL Insight, "Pre-emptive Action to Forestall Terrorism".

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

OOPS!!

This is what John Kerry referred to about Bush's abuse of executive powers.

The UN inspectors were still in Iraq for crying out loud.


Kerry VOTED for that bill....so I guess he must be nuts huh ?
BTW cherry picking is useless in this case..

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';


Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.



that have already been enumerated...


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq


Kerry is a bigger moron than I thought .

Is that all you can bring canuk ? I thought you were better than that .


The UN inspectors were still in Iraq for crying out loud.

Right you finaly are starting to catch on ! They were still there trying to do a job that should have been done no later than 1992...cripes its the UN and they are a bunch of nitwits..so lets give them more time...say 8 years...

Nope no good..they couldnt find there ass with both hands in TEN years !!!!!

By what right did OUR President put our safety and security in that bunch of morons hands ??

OVER ten years ..to comply with an agreement for a CEASE fire from a war he started and LOST..the UN could do SHIT !

Now if it wasnt for France and Germany and Russia all making money hands over fist on the oil for food scandal ...maybe they would have found it in their " INTEREST " to enforce the security councils demands that were being ignored and used for toilet paper by Iraq....but they have not the balls ...and besides they were making a bundle .

The UN could have prevented the Iraqi invasion if it actually attempted even ONCE to enforce ANYFUCKINGTHING...so lay all the civilian deaths and the US military deaths at the feet of the collosal failure of the so called United Nations . Thats were it belongs.

One question to ask yourself and be honest ...WHY if it was in the best interest of the world and never mind the fact that the UN is supposed to prevent WARS did they DO NOTHING even after the US said enforce or we will ?

Come up with one reason that meets the criteria of common sense .
They KNEW the US would invade because we TOLD them we would and why.
More than once...so why not enforce the security council reolutions and avert an invasion by the Coalition of NON UN countries?

A failure worse than the farce that was the League of nations...a huge failure by the UN . It couldnt even assure its CHARTER MEMBER and LARGEST contribiture that it coud be trusted to do the JOB IT WAS BUILT TO DO.

We should place a plaque with the name of every dead soldier and civilian from the Iraq war on the door and walls of the UN .

I guess you should read the post above yours...the US had every right and Iraq has not only been conquered but its under a new DEMOCRATICLY elected government and has a Constitution ratified byTHE PEOPLE of IRAQ .
the US is there until the Iraqi army can protect the country and the police can do there job...the Iraqi PEOPLE have turned against the insugency and are ratting them out faster then we and the Iraqi army can kill them .
And by DEMOCRATICALLY voting, they are now saying to the US......GET OUT:

Iraqis Voted Because They Want U.S. Troops Out (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0206-27.htm)

Rose coloured glasses will not improve your vision.

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces in the Gulf War? NONE

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces when they illegally invaded Iraq in 2003? NONE

Yet the US has used chemical weapons against Iraqis in both wars.

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm)

US used white phosphorus in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)

K

Give it up DK.

Kinda changed the subject, didn't you? The fact of the matter is that for years now, you and many like you have been claiming that the Iraq invasion was a criminal war, and that there was never any WMD's in Iraq. So now that there is tangible, concrete proof that you were wrong, you just merely change the subject, ignore the proof, and state that they did not use any of these against U.S. troops, as though that had ANYTHING to do with the original post.

Our troops are and were in a war. What do you suggest U.S. troops use against the enemy, squirt guns at 20 paces? And those only under U.N. supervision? How about the unspoken part of your argument, friend? The part that apparently thinks it's ok to kill American soldiers, unarmed civilians, and foreign aid workers of every nationality with car bombs, and suicide bombers? We'd be justified in nearly any approach we could possibly conceive of to kill that kind of enemy.

What kind of person makes that kind of argument after claiming there were no WMD's in Iraq? A hypocrite, sir.

Give it up, indeed.

And by DEMOCRATICALLY voting, they are now saying to the US......GET OUT:

Iraqis Voted Because They Want U.S. Troops Out (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0206-27.htm)

Rose coloured glasses will not improve your vision.

Too bad if we did leave right now the Iraqi gov't would collapse...and the people's "Wish" (Never can trust a socialist/progessive Internet paper) WILL come back to bite them.

Tough-it's tough love, really. Once the ING, Iraqi police, and the gov't is set up and the insurgency is crushed we can go. Want us to go sooner? Crush it yourselves.

Kinda changed the subject, didn't you? The fact of the matter is that for years now, you and many like you have been claiming that the Iraq invasion was a criminal war, and that there was never any WMD's in Iraq. So now that there is tangible, concrete proof that you were wrong, you just merely change the subject, ignore the proof, and state that they did not use any of these against U.S. troops, as though that had ANYTHING to do with the original post.

Our troops are and were in a war. What do you suggest U.S. troops use against the enemy, squirt guns at 20 paces? And those only under U.N. supervision? How about the unspoken part of your argument, friend? The part that apparently thinks it's ok to kill American soldiers, unarmed civilians, and foreign aid workers of every nationality with car bombs, and suicide bombers? We'd be justified in nearly any approach we could possibly conceive of to kill that kind of enemy.

What kind of person makes that kind of argument after claiming there were no WMD's in Iraq? A hypocrite, sir.

Give it up, indeed.
I can't believe you folks are getting so happy about some pre-91 weapons. Did those constitute imminent threat? Maybe in the hysterical bedwetting phase of some of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders' post-9/11 panic phase, but not in the minds of any reasonable people. I mean, if Bush had gone to Congress and tried to sell the war based on the potential threat of decade-old mustard gas and sarin, he'd have been laughed out of the room by his own party, and rightfully so, and you know that. So why the victory dance? You do realize how sad it looks to everyone around you, right?

Kinda changed the subject, didn't you? The fact of the matter is that for years now, you and many like you have been claiming that the Iraq invasion was a criminal war, and that there was never any WMD's in Iraq. So now that there is tangible, concrete proof that you were wrong, you just merely change the subject, ignore the proof, and state that they did not use any of these against U.S. troops, as though that had ANYTHING to do with the original post.
IF this was "tangible, concrete proof", you wouldn't be able to shut George Bush up. Yet not a peep, and for obvious reasons. This is old news, very old news.

Our troops are and were in a war. What do you suggest U.S. troops use against the enemy, squirt guns at 20 paces? And those only under U.N. supervision? How about the unspoken part of your argument, friend? The part that apparently thinks it's ok to kill American soldiers, unarmed civilians, and foreign aid workers of every nationality with car bombs, and suicide bombers? We'd be justified in nearly any approach we could possibly conceive of to kill that kind of enemy.
To suggest that I think that it is okay to kill US soldiers is totally wrong. I don't think ANY US soldiers should have been killed, simply by not going to war against Iraq in the first place.

What kind of person makes that kind of argument after claiming there were no WMD's in Iraq? A hypocrite, sir.

Give it up, indeed.
I sir am no hipocrite. There were no WMD in Iraq that were an "imminent threat" to the US. Finding leftovers from previous wars does not constitute a "smoking gun" my friend. Remember, the UN inspectors were not finding any WMD despite their extensive search. Ditto David Kay and Dilfeurs (sp?).

None. Nada. Zip!!

Edit: I am truly offended that you think that I think that it is okay for people to kill others. None of the deaths in Iraq are acceptable. However, it appears that you are willing to accept the death of innocent Iraqi citizens as a fair price to pay in this immoral war?

Too bad if we did leave right now the Iraqi gov't would collapse...and the people's "Wish" (Never can trust a socialist/progessive Internet paper) WILL come back to bite them.

Tough-it's tough love, really. Once the ING, Iraqi police, and the gov't is set up and the insurgency is crushed we can go. Want us to go sooner? Crush it yourselves.Hate to tell you this, but that government is toast whether we leave now or in ten years. It has no real power outside the meeting rooms it inhabits. And the second we leave, it'll be a full-on civil war as opposed to the holding action and jockeying for position it currently is.

Kerry VOTED for that bill....so I guess he must be nuts huh ?
BTW cherry picking is useless in this case..

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';


Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.



that have already been enumerated...


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq


Kerry is a bigger moron than I thought .

Is that all you can bring canuk ? I thought you were better than that .


OH NOES!11!!!

;)

IF this was "tangible, concrete proof", you wouldn't be able to shut George Bush up. Yet not a peep, and for obvious reasons. This is old news, very old news.


To suggest that I think that it is okay to kill US soldiers is totally wrong. I don't think ANY US soldiers should have been killed, simply by not going to war against Iraq in the first place.


I sir am no hipocrite. There were no WMD in Iraq that were an "imminent threat" to the US. Finding leftovers from previous wars does not constitute a "smoking gun" my friend. Remember, the UN inspectors were not finding any WMD despite their extensive search. Ditto David Kay and Dilfeurs (sp?).

None. Nada. Zip!!

I thought it was the oft toted line that "There were no WMDs in iraq!!111!!!!!".

He had them. He could have used them. Would they have made any difference if they were in NY or iraq? None.

Hey guys, didn't you hear that the DOD has already said (http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/santorumdod.320.240.mov) that these "were not the WMD for which this country went to war"? Guess not.

Hate to tell you this, but that government is toast whether we leave now or in ten years. It has no real power outside the meeting rooms it inhabits. And the second we leave, it'll be a full-on civil war as opposed to the holding action and jockeying for position it currently is.

So the second we leave the ING collapses, the IP collapses, and everything falls into peices?

Negative. That is why it's important we make sure the gov't has a stable foundation and an even stronger Military& police force to keep things stable.

I thought it was the oft toted line that "There were no WMDs in iraq!!111!!!!!".

He had them. He could have used them. Would they have made any difference if they were in NY or iraq? None.
Oh come on, you know CH and others like him reserve the right to change their stance.
"I voted for the war before I voted agaisnt it" remember?

First it was "there were no WMD's"

Now it's "there were no nuclear WMD's used against us"

Next it'll be "there were no WMD's in this particular warehouse over here, those in that warehouse didn't count because Bush didn't mention THAT warehouse."

So the second we leave the ING collapses, the IP collapses, and everything falls into peices?

Negative. That is why it's important we make sure the gov't has a stable foundation and an even stronger Military& police force to keep things stable.
The parallel is South Vietnam in 1975, only this will be uglier, because there's not a single power to take control of the situation. The ING has no real power. The streets are ruled by local warlords and militias, by the likes of Moqtada al Sadr and the Peshmerga. You think they're going to meekly submit the the ING? Hah! And why should they?

Hate to tell you this, but that government is toast whether we leave now or in ten years. It has no real power outside the meeting rooms it inhabits. And the second we leave, it'll be a full-on civil war as opposed to the holding action and jockeying for position it currently is.
Forgive me if I'm mis-remembering.... but you are full immediate withdrawl of US forces from Iraq.

If that's the case, then you are actually supporting the full-on civil war instead of the holding action and jockeying for position it currently is?

Why do you want civil war in Iraq? What do you have against the Iraqi people?

Oh come on, you know CH and others like him reserve the right to change their stance.
By the way...are chemical grenades weapons of mass destruction? Even if dropped into NY, the damage a single such grenade can do is probably not that much more a big bomb can do. They are tactical weapons, not strategic ones. Not something you put on top of a missile and shoot at Israel or the US. Not a threat.

At any rate, the US didn't know about these things before they attacked Iraq (which I have never argued to be illegal, by the way, just incredibly stupid and unnecessary - the real crime was the way it was conducted, not the war itself). They were expecting the sort of big program they told us about in front of the UN. That they were lucky enough to find a few rotting shells buried somewhere should hardly be construed as justifiying their previous arguments.

Oh come on, you know CH and others like him reserve the right to change their stance.
"I voted for the war before I voted agaisnt it" remember?

First it was "there were no WMD's"

Now it's "there were no nuclear WMD's used against us"

Next it'll be "there were no WMD's in this particular warehouse over here, those in that warehouse didn't count because Bush didn't mention THAT warehouse."
I've posted it already on this thread, but I'll keep posting it if I have to--the DOD has already said those weren't the WMD we went to war for (ttp://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/santorumdod.320.240.mov). They were the munitions mentioned way the fuck back in the Duelfer report.

And by DEMOCRATICALLY voting, they are now saying to the US......GET OUT:

Iraqis Voted Because They Want U.S. Troops Out (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0206-27.htm)

Rose coloured glasses will not improve your vision.


Wow no shit..the Iraqi peole want us to leave ? Your joking right ?
You fail to mention that they want us to LEAVE when its SAFE for them to have us leave. In fact they are scared we may leave too soon ...seems we have a few dudes with no onions who want to cut and run...just like in every war we ever fought ..including WW II .

I dont wear glasses.

By the way...are chemical grenades weapons of mass destruction? Even if dropped into NY, the damage a single such grenade can do is probably not that much more a big bomb can do. They are tactical weapons, not strategic ones. Not something you put on top of a missile and shoot at Israel or the US. Not a threat.

At any rate, the US didn't know about these things before they attacked Iraq (which I have never argued to be illegal, by the way, just incredibly stupid and unnecessary - the real crime was the way it was conducted, not the war itself). They were expecting the sort of big program they told us about in front of the UN. That they were lucky enough to find a few rotting shells buried somewhere should hardly be construed as justifiying their previous arguments.
Hmmm I read the memo and I didn't see where it specifically said "grenade". The first place I saw the term grenade was in CH's post.

What makes you think it was grenades?

Forgive me if I'm mis-remembering.... but you are full immediate withdrawl of US forces from Iraq.

If that's the case, then you are actually supporting the full-on civil war instead of the holding action and jockeying for position it currently is?

Why do you want civil war in Iraq? What do you have against the Iraqi people?
I have nothing against them, and I don't want civil war--I just feel, as I have for about a year now, that civil war is inevitable, and so the US might as well get out of the middle of it. Does that make me cold? Perhaps. I can live with that.

What makes you think it was grenades?
Shells. In German, the word is "Granate" - I see I may have made a translation error.

Either way, it's not like these are actual WMD. They are tactical battlefield weaponry.

Shells. In German, the word is "Granate" - I see I may have made a translation error.

Either way, it's not like these are actual WMD. They are tactical battlefield weaponry.
I still think they qualify as WMD's. I guess it depends on ones definition of WMD.

Tactical nukes are still WMD's even tho they are not mounted on ICBM's

I still think they qualify as WMD's. I guess it depends on ones definition of WMD.

Tactical nukes are still WMD's even tho they are not mounted on ICBM's
Again, the Duelfer report, which mentioned these very weapons, said they weren't WMD. You might as well get used to the fact that this is no great new discovery, no matter how much Fox News trumpeted it earlier today.

The pretenses under which operations in Iraq occurred is questionable at best, shameful at worst.


But I'm not going to sit here and let people pin the blame for this mess squarely on the US. The UN and all its major nations, including you Canadians and British, dropped the ball when it came to Iraq. They blew their noses all over UN resolution after resolution and nobody did jack squat about it.

And the US wasn't alone going into Iraq either, so the US isn't a sole military culprit either.



Yeah Bush is acting according to interests contrary to the World's, Iraq's, the UN's, heck even the US' own interests, but this doesn't make the US, or even Bush, entirely blame.





And when it comes to chemical weapons of the nature like Sarin and Mustard gas I don't give a crap how much was recovered: no nation should be in position of said weapons period. Those are NOT military weapons. Chemical and Biological weapons have ZERO military application. Give me a MOPP 4 and I will go out and sunbathe in mustard gas, but a densely packed civilian center is looking at significant casualties.

Long story short those kind of weapons only have one purpose: slaying civilians. So no nation should ever have those kind of weapons. I don't care who, and I most certainly include my own nation on that list of nations that shouldn't have those kind of weapons in stockpile, since I did say everyone.

NT

I've favored dealing with Iraq for years anyway. Especially since each and every one of the more than 800 attacks on Coalition aircraft patrolling the No Fly Zones was a violation of the peace agreement that ended the first Gulf War and grounds for the invasion of Iraq.

But the way immediate aftermath of the invasion was handled was stupid at best and grossly incompetent at best.

Again, the Duelfer report, which mentioned these very weapons, said they weren't WMD. You might as well get used to the fact that this is no great new discovery, no matter how much Fox News trumpeted it earlier today.



Thats odd all my newspapers gave it great play..in fact FOX news claimed that the WMDS were from the 90's and were not in fact the WMDS we were looking for ...just stuff Saddam had laying around and was hiding from the arms inspectors..now as for commentary all the looney toons were out in force on all sides ...meh...

Long story short those kind of weapons only have one purpose: slaying civilians.
Tell that to the Iraqis and Iranians who used them to try and defeat each other in trench warfare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-iraq_war#Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction

Black people are to blame for WMD not being found in Iraq.

I still think they qualify as WMD's. I guess it depends on ones definition of WMD.

Tactical nukes are still WMD's even tho they are not mounted on ICBM's

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Clear enough for everyone????????

Clear enough for everyone????????

What's clear is that it is black people's fault.

What's clear is that it is black people's fault.

Only if you're looking at a photographic negative.

Tell that to the Iraqis and Iranians who used them to try and defeat each other in trench warfare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-iraq_war#Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction

I think you are missing the point. For the modern military these weapons have no purpose except slaying civlians. It cannot be helped if some countries have purposefully decided to retard their own technological and military progress.

But even with the conflict you mention you will notice that both sides have anti-chemical warfare gear, and thus bio-chem attacks amount to a more or less hit or miss situation wherein you hope that you hit an unprepared unit.

This is a grossly irresponsible means of conducting warfare as it is highly dangerous to civlians.

NT

Hell CS gas is considered a chemical weapon. Russians used it on a hostage situation a while back. OMG!!11!!!
The one in the cinema?

They got the formula only slightly wrong and nerve gas killed pretty much everyone inside. It's clearly very dangerous if it's that close to a lethal weapon.
Napalm is effective, and it works, although we don't use it for that purpose anymore. And who cares if some of Iraq's dumbest got it on them? Not a problem with me.
Your house needs to be napalmed due to you clearly being one of the US' dumbest. Not a problem with me!

Tell that to the Iraqis and Iranians who used them to try and defeat each other in trench warfare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-iraq_war#Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction
Do you think anyone would mind if I swapped "Iranian" for "Persian" on that bit of the site?

Because I really don't like the word Iranian, and Persian is their own term in English for themselves.



Oh and Ceia - I really hope you're being sarcastic...

Declassified Pentagon report:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

Not the huge amounts that were anticipated or claimed, but 500 sarin and mustard shells is definitely WMD.

Just imagine what one sarin shell would do in a shopping mall or other enclosed space.


Those would be left-overs from the Iran-Iraq war.
*shrug*
Dreadfully sorry, but this amounts to... zippo.

Long story short those kind of weapons only have one purpose: slaying civilians.

Wasn't the case in WWI...


So no nation should ever have those kind of weapons. I don't care who, and I most certainly include my own nation on that list of nations that shouldn't have those kind of weapons in stockpile, since I did say everyone.


No nation should have the power to render the planetary surface uninhabitable either. But that's not how humans work unfortunately. I don't think we'll ever see a day when nations do away with their chemical and nuclear weapons at all.

And before anyone posts the Chemical Weapons Convention, you'll note it only talks about specific chemical classes. Anyone who has stuff outside said classes gets to keep it.

Wasn't the case in WWI...



No nation should have the power to render the planetary surface uninhabitable either. But that's not how humans work unfortunately. I don't think we'll ever see a day when nations do away with their chemical and nuclear weapons at all.

And before anyone posts the Chemical Weapons Convention, you'll note it only talks about specific chemical classes. Anyone who has stuff outside said classes gets to keep it.


That's nifty, but since I wasn't talking about a hundred years ago, rather modern times my point still stands... (getting really tired of defending the complete and unadulterated truth here people). Chemical weapons are NOT military grade weapons. The delivery systems for chemical weapons are just too inefficient, and biological weapons are too unreliable and too imprecise (how do you stop your pathogen from coming back to your own country via planes?)



The power to render the earth's surface uninhabitable exists where? I'm all ears. My dad's worked as a nuclear weapons designer/consultant for the military and DoE for the passed 25 years or so, and as near as I am aware there isn't a damn thing on this planet that comes even close to ruining the entire planet. You could detonate every nuclear weapon we have on this planet and it might make the earth unhappy about being 10 degrees F colder. Super Volcanoes detonate with the same force this sort of thing I'm talking about and the earth isn't rendered uninhabitable for long periods of time.

So really what weapons are you talking about? I'm not aware of any kind of super pathogens which are both air borne, highly infectious, and have a greater than 50% lethality rate. Most shit that lethal just doesn't appear in nature because it tends to kill off its target population before it can be spread. And as for designer bugs, just where exactly is this super secret research taking place? Hell what base are you using. Some designer anthrax strains are pretty killer stuff, but we don't get anything which could wipe out humanity, let alone render the earth's surface uninhabitable.

And no chemical weapon with the potency you could be talking about exists. There is just nothing that can affect the kind of land area you are talking about. If nuclear reactions can get AT BEST in the hundreds of square miles, then just what in the hell makes anyone think a purely chemical agent can have anywhere near that kind of area of effect, let alone the entirety of the earth's land area or earth's surface even. Near as I can tell if you want to out do nuclear processes you'd need a volume of anti-matter the size of a beachball...



Long story short: Nuclear Holocaust = Elaborate Fiction.

NT

Besides the obvious fact, that this is such a mere pittance, and hardly anything to the kind of volume that the Bushies would like us to believe, are we going to say that becuase of THIS find, that it gives justification to the incompetently handled war, that was started on unjustifiable and immoral grounds?

I think not.

Besides, did anyone notice the source of the source?

*snip*

Last post for now, so I'll be brief. When I meant uninhabitable, I meant with nuclear weapons. Looking at my post, I can understand how it's possible to infer I meant bio and chemical weapons too. My bad.

As to the uninhabitable, certainly, a few of the hardier species will survive and I imagine quite a few seaborn creature will most likely live out normally. But humanity? Not very likely really. Even if there aren't enough nuclear weapons to cover every land mass in a fireball, the fallout alone should prove to be fairly lethal to humanity as a race.

So what happens in a nuclear war? The existing eco-system gets shot to hell. So maybe we'll see a few survivors make it to the next eco-system that forms after things quieten down. Will humans be in that mix? Dunno, but it doesn't seem likely.

Either way, there's no way to empirically test either hypothesis in a practical manner.

Which is fortunate.

p.s. Doomsday scenarios can involve salted (co-60) versions of the tsar bomba situated somewhere with significant tradewinds.

BS.

Mustard gas is good for 70 years plus. Go ask the french farmers who every now and then uncover some mustard gas left over from WW1-close to 90 years ago.

So I guess this stuff is so old and degraded you could use it to add some flavor to your ice cream? Mmmm! Mustard gas Ice cream flavoring! It's WMDs Saddam SAID HE DESTROYED all of them. He didn't. Would those 15-20 year old iraqi WMDs make any difference in Iraq or in NY?

None of the weapons in the finds were considered sufficient to be included in the Iraq Survey Group final report, the British reports or the UN. They were old, discarded, degraded crap, most likely misplaced post Iran-Iraq. Its bollocks. Old bollocks.

told you so

Wow no shit..the Iraqi peole want us to leave ? Your joking right ?
You fail to mention that they want us to LEAVE when its SAFE for them to have us leave. In fact they are scared we may leave too soon ...seems we have a few dudes with no onions who want to cut and run...just like in every war we ever fought ..including WW II .

I dont wear glasses.
I guess if you are blind then you really don't need glasses?

Here is a good article, by a retired Lt. General, that addresses many concerns, especially the "cut and run" scenario.

Iraq: Get out now (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-odom4may04,0,2656287.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)

Apparently, even the majority of troops figure that it is time to move on:

Zogby: 72% of US Troops Surveyed Say Leave Iraq in 2006 (http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20060228212828287/print)

Perhaps you want to continue the punishment that US troops are getting?

I've favored dealing with Iraq for years anyway. Especially since each and every one of the more than 800 attacks on Coalition aircraft patrolling the No Fly Zones was a violation of the peace agreement that ended the first Gulf War and grounds for the invasion of Iraq.
That is not correct. The No Fly Zones were never sanctioned by the UN and so called infractions by Iraq were not considered as breaches of the ceasefire.

But the way immediate aftermath of the invasion was handled was stupid at best and grossly incompetent at best.
I can totally agree with you on that.

So really what weapons are you talking about? I'm not aware of any kind of super pathogens which are both air borne, highly infectious, and have a greater than 50% lethality rate. Most shit that lethal just doesn't appear in nature because it tends to kill off its target population before it can be spread. And as for designer bugs, just where exactly is this super secret research taking place? Hell what base are you using. Some designer anthrax strains are pretty killer stuff, but we don't get anything which could wipe out humanity, let alone render the earth's surface uninhabitable.
Some Anthrax strains are 100% lethal upon breathing it in. Smallpox could be used to kill off basically everyone in the world.

Look at the the casulties caused in WWI and rethink your statement.


Yeah... sarin and mustard projectiles really sound like a rival to the atom bomb. :rolleyes:

Look at the the casulties caused in WWI and rethink your statement.
The circumstances were very different, though.

Slighty melodramatic Smallpox is only about 30-35% lethal.

Some Anthrax strains are 100% lethal upon breathing it in. Smallpox could be used to kill off basically everyone in the world.

Slighty melodramatic Smallpox is only about 30-35% lethal.
Seeing as most places in the world have no immunity to it, I think you're underestimating its danger.

I was vacintated for Smallpox as were most people born before 1970


Seeing as most places in the world have no immunity to it, I think you're underestimating its danger.

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces in the Gulf War? NONE

And how many WMD did Iraq use against coalition forces when they illegally invaded Iraq in 2003? NONE

Yet the US has used chemical weapons against Iraqis in both wars.

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm)

US used white phosphorus in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)

Give it up DK.

Neither of those weapons kill from direct chemical effects. Rather, it's their ability to burn at very high temperatures that causes death. There's a difference between a poison and a flammable substance. :headbang:

Slighty melodramatic Smallpox is only about 30-35% lethal.

Read about Popov and Alibek then come back to me....

I was vacintated for Smallpox as were most people born before 1970
Think you are safe huh?

In the United States, the cessation of vaccinations 30 years ago has created what is effectively a virgin soil population in which previously vaccinated U.S. citizens have little if any waning immunity and those born after 1972 have none at all.[6] Historically, this type of unprotected population has not fared well against the virus. For example, when a series of events surrounding the 1519 exploits of Hernando Cortes unwittingly introduced smallpox among the virgin Aztec civilization of Mexico, the impact was so devastating that within a generation the Aztec culture, religion, and language were gone.[7] Similarly, the distribution by British forces of blankets that had been used by smallpox patients among virgin populations of American Indians during the French and Indian Wars (1754-1767) led to epidemics of the disease with case-fatality rates (the percentage of deaths among infected individuals) reportedly surpassing 50 percent in affected tribes.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030106.htm

Apparently not?

Buy YOUR account a population with 0 exposure had a 50% mortality with 18th century medical technology. I'm not worried.


Think you are safe huh?

In the United States, the cessation of vaccinations 30 years ago has created what is effectively a virgin soil population in which previously vaccinated U.S. citizens have little if any waning immunity and those born after 1972 have none at all.[6] Historically, this type of unprotected population has not fared well against the virus. For example, when a series of events surrounding the 1519 exploits of Hernando Cortes unwittingly introduced smallpox among the virgin Aztec civilization of Mexico, the impact was so devastating that within a generation the Aztec culture, religion, and language were gone.[7] Similarly, the distribution by British forces of blankets that had been used by smallpox patients among virgin populations of American Indians during the French and Indian Wars (1754-1767) led to epidemics of the disease with case-fatality rates (the percentage of deaths among infected individuals) reportedly surpassing 50 percent in affected tribes.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030106.htm

Apparently not?

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]Don't get excited, I agree with you.
But while your post count is below...say...2,500 you'll be a new guy. ;)[QUOTE]

At this rate It'll take me a while until I'm not considered a new guy, and I don't thonk that anybody's ever replied to one of my posts.

Don't get excited, I agree with you.
But while your post count is below...say...2,500 you'll be a new guy. ;)

At this rate It'll take me a while until I'm not considered a new guy, and I don't thonk that anybody's ever replied to one of my posts.
You poor thing...
Here you go :)

Buy YOUR account a population with 0 exposure had a 50% mortality with 18th century medical technology. I'm not worried.

And ignore the fact that blankets aren't an ideal way to spread disease.

Pre-1991 stuff that's past its use-by-date and is inert sludge. Frankly, I'd have been astonished had the Iraqis retained sufficient documentation to dispose of the lot. A third world country, remember. Even Russia hasn't a clue what it has and where. Even France has more buried in the First World War battlefields.

Not the WMD we were looking for, really. Scuds armed with fresh product and fueled and pointing at Kuwait, now that would have been a find. This is worthless.

They are cutting edge bioscientists the top .01% with access to what ever equipment they need. Achmed the Jhadi will be lightyears less advanced. I'm more worried about an accidental bioweapon leak from an old Soviet era lab than a Jihadi in a cave in Afghanistan..That being said a new Smallpox epidemic would be devistating with about 30% lethality in 1st world countries and more in backwaters.

It would be more likely to see a Jihadi use Sarin or Phosgene...

Read about Popov and Alibek then come back to me....

It is FAR from inert WWI chemical weapons are still highly lethal

A bomb vest w/chem agent reguardless of age is a very nasty prospect.


Pre-1991 stuff that's past its use-by-date and is inert sludge. Frankly, I'd have been astonished had the Iraqis retained sufficient documentation to dispose of the lot. A third world country, remember. Even Russia hasn't a clue what it has and where. Even France has more buried in the First World War battlefields.

Not the WMD we were looking for, really. Scuds armed with fresh product and fueled and pointing at Kuwait, now that would have been a find. This is worthless.

It is FAR from inert WWI chemical weapons are still highly lethal
Not in the battlefield-pwning "kill an army at a stroke" sense. More like, the farmer who hits one with a plough ends up in hospital. Scary stuff.

Imagine that in the AC or heater of a mall or school.

Not in the battlefield-pwning "kill an army at a stroke" sense. More like, the farmer who hits one with a plough ends up in hospital. Scary stuff.

Imagine that in the AC or heater of a mall or school.

Frankly, any army* occupying a mall or school and not intelligent to secure these basic facilities which could be expolited in such a way pretty much diserves it.

*Talking several thousand soldiers, here, not a few GIs that could get gassed, which is what TG actually said.

The words MASS and DESTRUCTION are important here.

Imagine that in the AC or heater of a mall or school.
You'd be better off putting something together in your garage, than shipping a rusting, leaking shell halfway around the world.

You are fundamentally missing the point that cost/benefit analysis applies to war and terrorism the same way it applies to any other enterprise. The stuff you will find in the junkyards and littering Iran-Iraq war battlefields, is not remotely fit for purpose.

The stuff they claim to have found is not mobile, and is dangerous only if you step on it. A single anti-personnel mine poses a far greater threat, to be honest, because at least you know that if you touch it, it's going to work.

You'd be better off putting something together in your garage, than shipping a rusting, leaking shell halfway around the world.

You are fundamentally missing the point that cost/benefit analysis applies to war and terrorism the same way it applies to any other enterprise. The stuff you will find in the junkyards and littering Iran-Iraq war battlefields, is not remotely fit for purpose.

The stuff they claim to have found is not mobile, and is dangerous only if you step on it. A single anti-personnel mine poses a far greater threat, to be honest, because at least you know that if you touch it, it's going to work.

Considering that they use old shells for IEDs, if one was to be used, I would think that due to the transport risks, they would use them in a nearby Iraqi town - in that case, you could kill several hundred people or more, depending on the breaks.

Plenty of instructions for nearly as lethal common chemicals are available at your local university, and all you have to do is take a chemistry class.

I distinctly remember the first day of lab - we got a short lecture on what not to mix together. As was discovered in recent news in the US, these things are available at Home Depot.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1205309,00.html

Who's talking about an army?? I'm talking about your school or your mall. How many children would die at your school is Sarin was put in the AC/Heater?



Frankly, any army* occupying a mall or school and not intelligent to secure these basic facilities which could be expolited in such a way pretty much diserves it.

*Talking several thousand soldiers, here, not a few GIs that could get gassed, which is what TG actually said.

The words MASS and DESTRUCTION are important here.

Considering that they use old shells for IEDs, if one was to be used, I would think that due to the transport risks, they would use them in a nearby Iraqi town - in that case, you could kill several hundred people or more, depending on the breaks.
They could if they would. And they have not. You would think if Iraq had WMDs stockpiled all over the place, after over 3 years of fighting, the insurgents would have found one that worked?

They could if they would. And they have not. You would think if Iraq had WMDs stockpiled all over the place, after over 3 years of fighting, the insurgents would have found one that worked?

Or maybe they're not fucking stupid. Firstly, it would not win you points with the locals, who, if they knew who you were, would skin you alive and present the carcass to the Americans. Secondly, it would not win you points with the US, who would react "most strongly" to the whole affair. Thirdly, it would make any anti-war spokespeople suddenly have to shut up about WMD, because the US would be able to say, "I told you so!"

I bet they have more than a few, and they buried them and stay well away from them. With orders not to be a dumbass.

Or maybe they're not fucking stupid. Firstly, it would not win you points with the locals, who, if they knew who you were, would skin you alive and present the carcass to the Americans. Secondly, it would not win you points with the US, who would react "most strongly" to the whole affair. Thirdly, it would make any anti-war spokespeople suddenly have to shut up about WMD, because the US would be able to say, "I told you so!"

I bet they have more than a few, and they buried them and stay well away from them. With orders not to be a dumbass.
Are you actually saying that the insurgents are all about PR moves and staying on the good side of liberals?

Thirdly, it would make any anti-war spokespeople suddenly have to shut up about WMD, because the US would be able to say, "I told you so!"
The terrorists and the damn liberals, all working together to fight freedom. ZOMFG!

Or maybe they're not fucking stupid. Firstly, it would not win you points with the locals, who, if they knew who you were, would skin you alive and present the carcass to the Americans. Secondly, it would not win you points with the US, who would react "most strongly" to the whole affair. Thirdly, it would make any anti-war spokespeople suddenly have to shut up about WMD, because the US would be able to say, "I told you so!"

I bet they have more than a few, and they buried them and stay well away from them. With orders not to be a dumbass.
Who said anything about locals? Plenty of highways with nothing but desert around. It's not as if they care about international opinion anyway, they're a fairly insular lot who don't realise that internet decapitations don't play well on the 24 hour TV news channels. And I doubt the US military would be in a position to do anything they are not doing already. What would their reaction be? Paint some harsher expletives on their bombs?

Here is how I see it.... Saddam's Iraq looking to get rid of old unreliable (leaking) chem warhead for his 155 artillery is approached by a Jihadi group they get they warheads and make suicide vests.

Next thing you know Sarin in Philly.


Like when an older guy has porn in his garage and the 14 year old neighbor kid "volunteers" to clean said garage. The Garage owner knows the porn is there but has plausable deniability and want his garage cleaned the 14 year old also knows the porn is there hence the "volenteering" but also has deniabilty and just wants the porn. They both get what they want without ever addressing the underlying porn.


You'd be better off putting something together in your garage, than shipping a rusting, leaking shell halfway around the world.

You are fundamentally missing the point that cost/benefit analysis applies to war and terrorism the same way it applies to any other enterprise. The stuff you will find in the junkyards and littering Iran-Iraq war battlefields, is not remotely fit for purpose.

The stuff they claim to have found is not mobile, and is dangerous only if you step on it. A single anti-personnel mine poses a far greater threat, to be honest, because at least you know that if you touch it, it's going to work.

Here is how I see it.... Saddam's Iraq looking to get rid of old unreliable (leaking) chem warhead for his 155 artillery is approached by a Jihadi group they get they warheads and make suicide vests.

Next thing you know Sarin in Philly.
What complete rubbish. What's the point, when you can make it at the point of use? Cheaper. Without having to talk to some homicidal nutcase.

Are you actually saying that the insurgents are all about PR moves and staying on the good side of liberals?

Yes. The only way that the US can "win" is to stay in country. So, the goal is to get the Americans to leave. How? Win the hearts and minds of the people on the left, who commonly idealize revolutionaries. It's very easy, especially because any long occupation will involve some atrocities on the part of the invader, even if they try hard not to.

The problem, as pointed out in Zarqawi's notes, is that the insurgency may not last long enough, being ground down day after day.

It certainly won the war for the North Vietnamese - it's bound to work again - as predictable as clockwork.

What would their reaction be? Paint some harsher expletives on their bombs?
well... according to that movie with Sean Connery about alcatraz... they would start using Napalm :eek:

Yes. The only way that the US can "win" is to stay in country. So, the goal is to get the Americans to leave. How? Win the hearts and minds of the people on the left, who commonly idealize revolutionaries. It's very easy, especially because any long occupation will involve some atrocities on the part of the invader, even if they try hard not to.

The problem, as pointed out in Zarqawi's notes, is that the insurgency may not last long enough, being ground down day after day.

It certainly won the war for the North Vietnamese - it's bound to work again - as predictable as clockwork.
Then why are more people on the left (me included) of the understanding that we have to stay in Iraq, at least for the time being, because of the shit Bush has caused?

This isn't a war that can be won by America. It's not that type of war. The government in Iraq can win or lose and the outcome is dependent on how you look at it. I think a democratic government without US aid would be a win for Iraq and America can finally take a breath and relax a bit. There isn't going to be any confetti at Times Square.

Then why are more people on the left (me included) of the understanding that we have to stay in Iraq, at least for the time being, because of the shit Bush has caused?

You're in a growing minority on the left. The PR campaign is working, just not working on you.

You're in a growing minority on the left. The PR campaign is working, just not working on you.
Then you're paying attention to the fringes.

Yes. The only way that the US can "win" is to stay in country. So, the goal is to get the Americans to leave. How? Win the hearts and minds of the people on the left, who commonly idealize revolutionaries. It's very easy, especially because any long occupation will involve some atrocities on the part of the invader, even if they try hard not to.

So we should just stay forever? Have entire generations be born and graduate high school, college, grad school, have babies, have grandbabies, die all the while the US is still occupying this country we shouldn't have invaded in the first place?

Here is how I see it.... Saddam's Iraq looking to get rid of old unreliable (leaking) chem warhead for his 155 artillery is approached by a Jihadi group they get they warheads and make suicide vests.

Next thing you know Sarin in Philly.
And to clear up a common misconception about terrorists...they are not glamorous people.

The guys who blew up the London Underground didn't fly in a chartered jet to an island in the Bahamas to meet some hawt chixxor with a satellite phone, so they could borrow it and speak to a Russian mafia guy, before getting the OK and snorkeling over to a yacht where a Colombian drug lord sells them military-grade plastic explosives. :cool:

No. They cooked up some stuff in the bathtub of a council house using instructions they got off a Google search. :rolleyes:

You seem to have the idea that this stuff works like the plot of a cheap paperback novel. It doesn't.

The point is you kill 3 birds with one stone.
1) The Jihadis are happy because you "gave" them WMD.
2)Your have because the old leaky shells are out of your hair.
3)Your happy because you screw the US.


What complete rubbish. What's the point, when you can make it at the point of use? Cheaper. Without having to talk to some homicidal nutcase.

Nothing so Ian Fleming...the stuff gets loaded on a container ship in say UAE off loaded in Philly where the cell is ....no scuba or parafoil :(


And to clear up a common misconception about terrorists...they are not glamorous people.

The guys who blew up the London Underground didn't fly in a chartered jet to an island in the Bahamas to meet some hawt chixxor with a satellite phone, so they could borrow it and speak to a Russian mafia guy, before getting the OK and snorkeling over to a yacht where a Colombian drug lord sells them military-grade plastic explosives. :cool:

No. They cooked up some stuff in the bathtub of a council house using instructions they got off a Google search. :rolleyes:

You seem to have the idea that this stuff works like the plot of a cheap paperback novel. It doesn't.

The point is you kill 3 birds with one stone.
1) The Jihadis are happy because you "gave" them WMD.
2)Your have because the old leaky shells are out of your hair.
3)Your happy because you screw the US.
It's too difficult to arrange. People are lazy, and they don't like taking unnecessary risks. That sort of thing never happened because there were easier ways that did not involve difficult negotiations.

So we should just stay forever? Have entire generations be born and graduate high school, college, grad school, have babies, have grandbabies, die all the while the US is still occupying this country we shouldn't have invaded in the first place?

To be entirely fair, we still have forces in Germany, Japan and Republic of Korea. The latter of which we shouldn't have needed to invade, but some idiot diplomat officers in D.C. sliced up the country the wrong way.

Oh, and we also still have forces in: Bosnia-Herzogovina, Kosovo, Diego Garcia, Guam, Okinawa, UK...

FAEs, or "Fuel-Air Explosives" (not napalm anymore because it sticks to kids), act similarly to napalm, however, its just JP5 and air. Causes a big boom, and sucks the oxygen out of things like caves and carved-out bunkers.

White Phosphorus is used as "smoke" rounds to obscure the battlefield, and hopefully, give our guys a tactical advantage.

US Troops usually go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties. Now, before you bring up Haigatha (sp), that's called a horrible breakdown in the chain of command, and poor discipline in that Marine unit. Things like that shame the entire Marine Corps.

So why is our death toll so high? Usually, its because our troops have to err on the side of civilians. They get shot at, they can't engage the hostiles, because they're hiding behind a group of civvies. So, they have to hunker down, and take it without giving any back.

And for those of us who said that we have to leave right now... that's only inviting Iran to conquer Iraq. And then we have to go back in there anyways because we didn't have the guts to do it right the first time. Is it for oil? Hell yeah its for oil. Think about how jacked up the oil prices are right now. What the heck happens when OPEC decides to dick with production again?

Our economy goes to the crapper in a real way, not the "Ohnoez, the Stock Markets' down!!!11!

I've posted it already on this thread, but I'll keep posting it if I have to--the DOD has already said those weren't the WMD we went to war for (ttp://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/santorumdod.320.240.mov). They were the munitions mentioned way the fuck back in the Duelfer report.
All that matters is that Saddam lied when he said he had destroyed all WMDs. The declassified report (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf) that has been released mentions several other key findings. First, pre-gulf war weapons, while degraded are still lethal. They can also be sold on the black market. Finally, there has been discussed in the open press that both insurgent and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons. Put all that together and Saddam certainly had the potential to supply chemical weapons to anyone that would pay. It is clear that this invasion was justified on this point, alone.

Or maybe they're not fucking stupid. Firstly, it would not win you points with the locals, who, if they knew who you were, would skin you alive and present the carcass to the Americans. Secondly, it would not win you points with the US, who would react "most strongly" to the whole affair. Thirdly, it would make any anti-war spokespeople suddenly have to shut up about WMD, because the US would be able to say, "I told you so!"

I bet they have more than a few, and they buried them and stay well away from them. With orders not to be a dumbass.


... The logical conclusion of this statement is that the Resistan- er, 'Insurgents' haven't actually killed any civilians at all, as that would harm their PR.

Therefore every single dead Iraqi civilian can be blamed on the invading forces.

Huh.

The point is you kill 3 birds with one stone.
1) The Jihadis are happy because you "gave" them WMD.
2)Your have because the old leaky shells are out of your hair.
3)Your happy because you screw the US.
Note that Saddam's relationship with Islamists of all kinds was such that the most likely scenario would've been that they explode the grenades in Baghdad rather than NY.
He'd been fighting his own war on terror for pretty much decades in Iraq. One of the terrorist leaders was actually the last PM of the post-invasion government.

and yet, sadaam payed familys of suicie bombers a "reward"

and yet, sadaam payed familys of suicie bombers a "reward"
Yes, but those guys had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. They were Palestinians, and you know how much of a PR war the Arab countries are fighting to be seen as the greatest supporters of the Palestinians.
As far as terrorism or islamism was concerned in his country, his fuse was short.

And besides, sending a few thousand bucks overseas is an entirely different ballgame from handing out your Number One Defence against an invasion to people you know you can't trust.

All that matters is that Saddam lied when he said he had destroyed all WMDs. The declassified report (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf) that has been released mentions several other key findings. First, pre-gulf war weapons, while degraded are still lethal. They can also be sold on the black market. Finally, there has been discussed in the open press that both insurgent and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons. Put all that together and Saddam certainly had the potential to supply chemical weapons to anyone that would pay. It is clear that this invasion was justified on this point, alone.
This is only relevant in your dreams, Myrmidonisia. Do you think, honestly, that if Bush had gone to Congress with the line "we have reason to believe that Saddam Hussein has some leftover mustard gas and sarin shells from the Iran-Iraq war that he didn't get rid of, and so we have to take him out because those could somehow wind up being a threat to our country" that he'd have gotten a dozen votes? Maybe between the two houses of Congress, he'd have gotten that. He sure as hell wouldn't have gotten authorization to go to war.

What got him that authorization was the threat of nukes. Botulinum toxin and anthrax might have helped, but the thing that nailed the case shut was Condi's "mushroom cloud" comment, and you know it. Quit acting like this is anything other than the bullshit everyone smells it as--you know better.

This is only relevant in your dreams, Myrmidonisia. Do you think, honestly, that if Bush had gone to Congress with the line "we have reason to believe that Saddam Hussein has some leftover mustard gas and sarin shells from the Iran-Iraq war that he didn't get rid of, and so we have to take him out because those could somehow wind up being a threat to our country" that he'd have gotten a dozen votes? Maybe between the two houses of Congress, he'd have gotten that. He sure as hell wouldn't have gotten authorization to go to war.

What got him that authorization was the threat of nukes. Botulinum toxin and anthrax might have helped, but the thing that nailed the case shut was Condi's "mushroom cloud" comment, and you know it. Quit acting like this is anything other than the bullshit everyone smells it as--you know better.
First, I don't think that Bush lied to anyone. I think he presented the best intelligence that he had. We can thank Jimmy Carter, Frank Church and George Tenent that it wasn't good enough. Second, I have no doubts that Saddam was pursuing more serious weapons of mass destruction and that the evidence is still buried in the desert. After unearthing a couple of military airplanes, I'm convinced that just about anything can be buried. Third, the anthrax threat was probably real. We were vaccinated pre-Desert Storm because we were afraid that Saddam would deploy it against us.

Last, the decision to invade and depose Saddam, or to maintain the status quo had to be made. And it had to be made without the benefit of hindsight. There are always decisions that need to be made with imperfect information. The only way to proceed in a rational manner is to decide what the consequences will result from a wrong decision. If Bush decides to maintain the status quo and Saddam really is building nukes, then we're in a lot of trouble. If Bush decides to invade and there's nothing going on, we've skated, for all practical purposes. This is the private process that probably took place. The public process needs more hyperbole, thus the mushroom cloud comments and the Colin Powell motor home show.

There are more than 2500 families that don't see it like that, but those casualties are pretty few, compared to the nuclear or chemical attack alternative.

Anyhow, that's my take on the whole thing and it's about as serious as I intend to be today. It's Friday, after all, and I can hear the bourbon splashing over the ice, already.

Yes, but those guys had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. They were Palestinians, and you know how much of a PR war the Arab countries are fighting to be seen as the greatest supporters of the Palestinians.
As far as terrorism or islamism was concerned in his country, his fuse was short.

And besides, sending a few thousand bucks overseas is an entirely different ballgame from handing out your Number One Defence against an invasion to people you know you can't trust.


His number one defense ?

against what ?

The first war ....he didnt use them ...
the second war ....he didnt use them .....


Only against civilian Kurds and Iranians did he use them ..

Why is it at times you seem to know what your talking about and on other things you are so clueless ?:) Or just seem to be at any rate ...:)

But really ask YOURSELF how the statement that saddams Chemical weapons were his "number one defense " makes any sense at all .
They are OFFENSIVE weapons to begin with .

And the cheapest way to use them would be to target the country you want to attack with third party Jihadist . Just like Iran does with Hezbolla .

take ONE mustard gas shell and ONE Jihadist and wait Until lunch time in the business sector in Brisbane Australia and blow it up...

Tons of civvie and police casualties ...one dead jihadist...points given to the Jihadist.

Now how do you in australia respond to that ?

how much did it cost ? And it need not invlolve more than four and could be done with two people ..one to smuggle in ONE shell and one to walk around with it in his back pack ...and they can both blow them selves up toghether .

Declassified Pentagon report:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

Not the huge amounts that were anticipated or claimed, but 500 sarin and mustard shells is definitely WMD.

Just imagine what one sarin shell would do in a shopping mall or other enclosed space.

I'm really not into polarisation but this seems a little like... grasping for straws?

I'm surprised that a supporter of the war try to use this as an argument, except in a byline tagged to a more substantial case. I just hope those weapons aren't the ones "we" sold them...

Ah, the realities we construct for ourselves.

What was it Goethe said?

We don't believe what we see. We see what we believe.

I'm really not into polarisation but this seems a little like... grasping for straws?

I'm surprised that a supporter of the war try to use this as an argument, except in a byline tagged to a more substantial case. I just hope those weapons aren't the ones "we" sold them...

Ah, the realities we construct for ourselves.

What was it Goethe said?

We don't believe what we see. We see what we believe.


We've never sold Iraq sarin or mustard. Are you saying that we sold Iraq sarin and mustard gas?

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, given to us by the united states while we were fighting iran, the same nation accusing us of not disarming

we never used them, other than in halabja and against iran, halabja was bad, however iran was about to occupy iraq, we had no choice.

in order to save the couple hundred that may have died from a terrorist attack, 100000 iraqis have died, but that makes sense because the life of an american is worth 100 times the life of an iraqi.

when america invaded, it knew very well our military, after the 1991 gulf war, and after 12 years of sanctions, had been flushed down the toilet, the loose change of our defence budget was used on the high repair costs of our 50 year old tanks.

iraq had no military force, how is it a threat?

First, I don't think that Bush lied to anyone. I think he presented the best intelligence that he had.

Yet the British information, which became publicly available later, showed that in fact he did not act on the "best intelligence". Not only that, he acted contrary to it.


Second, I have no doubts that Saddam was pursuing more serious weapons of mass destruction and that the evidence is still buried in the desert. After unearthing a couple of military airplanes, I'm convinced that just about anything can be buried. Including, it would seem, some inconvenient truths.

A multi-national team was unable to find not only the WMD, but any reference to them. Therefore there is no possibility of further hunt for missing WMD but only a hunt for a myth, which originates nor in fact, but the need for self-justification. Perhaps the people who look for the Ark could give fund raising tips to those who wish to take up this 'snark-hunt'.

[QUOTE=Myrmidonisia]
Third, the anthrax threat was probably real. We were vaccinated pre-Desert Storm because we were afraid that Saddam would deploy it against us..

That was over a decade previously, and its rather disengenous to bring it in.


Last, the decision to invade and depose Saddam, or to maintain the status quo had to be made. And it had to be made without the benefit of hindsight. There are always decisions that need to be made with imperfect information. The only way to proceed in a rational manner is to decide what the consequences will result from a wrong decision. If Bush decides to maintain the status quo and Saddam really is building nukes, then we're in a lot of trouble. If Bush decides to invade and there's nothing going on, we've skated, for all practical purposes. This is the private process that probably took place. The public process needs more hyperbole, thus the mushroom cloud comments and the Colin Powell motor home show...

I doubt very much if any such process took place. There was never any real evidence that Saddam had resumed nuclear production, but some evidence to the contrary via a high level defector.


There are more than 2500 families that don't see it like that, but those casualties are pretty few, compared to the nuclear or chemical attack alternative....

Nice the way you have the Iraqi civillians at the forefront of your mind. The Americans at least had the chance of voting for or against the liars who started the war. Theres a minimum of 30,000 Iraqi families (using your logic) who didnt even have that cold comfort.

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, given to us by the united states while we were fighting iran, the same nation accusing us of not disarming


Nope. The US, through civilian biological research microbial libraries, gave them samples of anthrax, etc. - samples they also obtained from other civilian biological research microbial libraries in other countries.

We never gave them any chemical weapons or nuclear material.

Nice fantasy you have there.

I would love to her your opinion on the war and how you faired before during and after the US invastion/occupation. Would you care to discuss it??



Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, given to us by the united states while we were fighting iran, the same nation accusing us of not disarming

we never used them, other than in halabja and against iran, halabja was bad, however iran was about to occupy iraq, we had no choice.

in order to save the couple hundred that may have died from a terrorist attack, 100000 iraqis have died, but that makes sense because the life of an american is worth 100 times the life of an iraqi.

when america invaded, it knew very well our military, after the 1991 gulf war, and after 12 years of sanctions, had been flushed down the toilet, the loose change of our defence budget was used on the high repair costs of our 50 year old tanks.

iraq had no military force, how is it a threat?

Actually during the Reagan adminstration some chemical weapons and precursers mayindeed have been sold to Sadam. Sadam was our Frankenstein.


Nope. The US, through civilian biological research microbial libraries, gave them samples of anthrax, etc. - samples they also obtained from other civilian biological research microbial libraries in other countries.

We never gave them any chemical weapons or nuclear material.

Nice fantasy you have there.

Actually during the Reagan adminstration some chemical weapons and precursers mayindeed have been sold to Sadam. Sadam was our Frankenstein.
Nope.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/17/iraq.chemical.suit/index.html

One US company may be involved indirectly, but no US government involvement. A lot of German, Dutch, and Indian involvement.

So, when are you going to shout "Germans sold chemical weapon precursors to Iraq!"

Nope. The US, through civilian biological research microbial libraries, gave them samples of anthrax, etc. - samples they also obtained from other civilian biological research microbial libraries in other countries.

We never gave them any chemical weapons or nuclear material.

Nice fantasy you have there.

Are biological weapons somehow not included in the definition of WMD?

That's in addtion to :

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer
http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

Nope.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/17/iraq.chemical.suit/index.html

One US company may be involved indirectly, but no US government involvement. A lot of German, Dutch, and Indian involvement.

So, when are you going to shout "Germans sold chemical weapon precursors to Iraq!"

Are biological weapons somehow not included in the definition of WMD?
In the pre-911 days, anyone, including YOU could order samples from a repository. They were run by universities, not by governments, and did not report to governments.

All that changed after 911 in the US - but you can still order from some European repositories today.

We're talking about samples the size of a pinhead, that you would have to culture and grow in tanks to be useful in any way, even for simple research.

Well, there are tons and tons of Mustard gas shells etc. in Belgium from WWI...

Let's invade! :D

Well, there are tons and tons of Mustard gas shells etc. in Belgium from WWI...

Let's invade! :D

They are also gagging for some kind of regime change. That Albert II just isn't democratically elected.

They are also gagging for some kind of regime change. That Albert II just isn't democratically elected.

Uhu :p

Hey, while you USians are busy in Belgium, hop over the border and do some of your magic regime change stuff in Holland :D

Uhu :p

Hey, while you USians are busy in Belgium, hop over the border and do some of your magic regime change stuff in Holland :D
No, I don't believe we should invade either Belgium or Holland, on the basis of the fact that it would disrupt beer production.

wat is sure if yo look at it,this Irak story is that "wmd "must have a new definition,having them and invade a country for it, as a geopolitic play,is a good way to bomb everybody specialy if you are playing with people...
Old story,smoke screen:mad:

Declassified Pentagon report:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

Not the huge amounts that were anticipated or claimed, but 500 sarin and mustard shells is definitely WMD.

Just imagine what one sarin shell would do in a shopping mall or other enclosed space.
This post is the equivalent of shouting down a rainbarrel. Only those who have actual, you know ... like, sense? ... will be willing to even listen, much less give a serious reply. Sarin and biological weapons to most of those on here are kinda like a fairytale. They have no concept of what destruction they can cause, and nothing less than a stockpile of a thousand nuclear weapons will make them sit up and take notice.

Sorry, but posting this on here will meet with nothing but scorn, contempt and sarcasm.

This post is the equivalent of shouting down a rainbarrel. Only those who have actual, you know ... like, sense? ... will be willing to even listen, much less give a serious reply. Sarin and biological weapons to most of those on here are kinda like a fairytale. They have no concept of what destruction they can cause, and nothing less than a stockpile of a thousand nuclear weapons will make them sit up and take notice.

Sorry, but posting this on here will meet with nothing but scorn, contempt and sarcasm.

Question is, is that scorn, contempt and sarcasm deserved?
Or is it an instance of bad judgement by DK?

The thing is that left over weapons which had long since ceased to figure in Iraq's arsenal or warplans does not tally with: 'Saddam possesses some of the world's deadliest hidden weapons of mass destruction.'

Sorry dud I had to fix your spelling error.


Uhu :p

Hey, while you Americans are busy in Belgium, hop over the border and do some of your magic regime change stuff in Holland :D

Belgin beer is a WMD. Chimay beers are horrible!


No, I don't believe we should invade either Belgium or Holland, on the basis of the fact that it would disrupt beer production.

This post is the equivalent of shouting down a rainbarrel. Only those who have actual, you know ... like, sense? ... will be willing to even listen, much less give a serious reply. Sarin and biological weapons to most of those on here are kinda like a fairytale. They have no concept of what destruction they can cause, and nothing less than a stockpile of a thousand nuclear weapons will make them sit up and take notice.

Sorry, but posting this on here will meet with nothing but scorn, contempt and sarcasm.
What do you expect people to respond, when the OP rehashes old news in new ways? This was mentioned in the Duelfer report addenda:
Residual Pre-1991 CBW Stocks
in Iraq
ISG assesses that Iraq and Coalition Forces will continue to discover small numbers of degraded chemical weapons, which the former Regime mislaid or improperly destroyed prior to 1991. ISG believes the bulk of these weapons were likely abandoned, forgotten and lost during the Iran-Iraq war because tens of thousands of CW munitions were forward deployed along frequently and rapidly shifting battlefronts.
• All but two of the chemical weapons discovered since OIF were found in southern Iraq where the majority of CW munitions were used against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.
• As the Coalition destroys the thousands of conventional munitions at depots around the country the possibility exists that pre-1991 vintage chemical rounds could be found mixed in with conventional munitions at these locations.
—ISG identified 43 bunkers and depots where the Coalition is in the process of destroying conventional munitions and that were suspected of being associated with the pre-1991 WMD programs. However, ISG believes that any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat to Coalition Forces because the agent and
munitions are degraded and there are not enough extant weapons to cause mass casualties. However, if placed in the hands of insurgents, the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives.
• Since May 2004, ISG has recovered 41 Sakr-18 CW rockets and eight Buraq CW rockets. Coalition military explosive experts doubted the rockets could be effectively launched because the physical state of the munitions was degraded from years of improper storage.
• Since 2003, insurgents have attacked Coalition Forces with two CW rounds (not including attacks with riot control agents) that ISG judges were produced by Iraq prior to 1991. Neither attack caused casualties and ISG believes the perpetrators did not know the rounds contained CW agent because the rounds were not marked to indicate they contained CW agent and they were used no differently than
insurgents had employed conventional munition Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).
• The mustard round used by insurgents as an IED near Abu Ghurayb Barracks on 2 May 2004 contained agent degraded to such an extent to be ineffective.
• There continues to be reporting that indicates terrorists
and insurgents possess chemical or biological weapons, although there is no evidence indicating that they have obtained “functional” CBW weapons or agents from the former Regime’s programs. An insurgent captured in Fallujah stated, “If we had chemical weapons, we would have used them.”
Iraqis seeking rewards have added toxic chemicals to unfilled pre-1991 chemical munitions to fool Coalition Forces into believing that they had found CW munitions.
• Polish Forces recovered 41 Sakr-18 rockets in June and July 2004. Of the rockets tested one contained residual sarin, five contained petroleum and a pesticide, and the remainders were empty. ISG believes that the Iraqis who provided the rockets added the pesticide because we have no previous reporting indicating that Iraq weaponized pesticides.
ISG has not found evidence to indicate that Iraq did not destroy its BW weapons or bulk agents. However, even if biological agents from the former program do remain they probably have significantly decreased pathogenicity because Iraq never successfully formulated its biological agents for long-term storage.
• According to a former Iraqi BW researcher, Iraq was not able to acquire drying technology because of sanctions.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/addenda.pdf

And remember that it was after this report that President Bush said the following:
When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.