NationStates Jolt Archive

You will notice that there has been no refutation of puppet status?
Noted.




Want a latte?

No one here has claimed that Saddam helped on 9-11 - that is a lie the left tries to spread.
Not true. But good to see you agree that there was no link at all.

we are fighting the same people that attacked us on 911
You could argue that Barrygoldwater is only talking about fighting the Al-Qaida insurgents in Iraq. But if you read the article he posted in relation to this statement you will see that it attempts to draw a direct link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks. His posts about the ruling of the Federal judge also seek to support his theory that Saddam helped on 9/11.

You could argue that Barrygoldwater is only talking about fighting the Al-Qaida insurgents in Iraq. But if you read the article he posted in relation to this statement you will see that it attempts to draw a direct link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks. His posts about the ruling of the Federal judge also seek to support his theory that Saddam helped on 9/11.
If I am not mistaken, both Barry and Alpen linked to that article, which was a bogus attempt to link Saddam and 9/11. The 9/11 Commission dispelled such a theory.

If I am not mistaken, both Barry and Alpen linked to that article, which was a bogus attempt to link Saddam and 9/11. The 9/11 Commission dispelled such a theory.

Yep.

Yep.


Nope. I have never claimed a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda on 9-11. NEVER.

I HAVE claimed that there were links between the two and according to the 9-11 report, an offer of "safe haven" for Al-Qaeda members.

If I recall correctly it is on page 63 of the 9-11 report. Since there was no collaboration between the two parties, any relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was clearly out of the scope of the investigation, yet somehow they found it necessary to point this fact out - not as a revelation of Iraqi guilt, but of simply a historical fact, just like they pointed out that Bin Laden was in the Sudan prior to Afghanistan.

Correction, it is on page 66 of the 9-11 report.

Here's a list of every notable reference to Iraq in the 9/11 Commission Report...

Page 58 - Bin Laden built his Islamic army with groups in various countries, including Iraq

Page 61 - Bin Laden willing to explore a relationship with Iraq.

Page 61 - Bin Laden agrees to stop supporting activities against Saddam; Reports indicate Saddam supported Ansar al-Islam (Terrorist Group training and operating in N. Iraq)

Page 61 - Bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, and asked for assistance.

Page 66 - Iraq then took the initiative to contact Al Qaeda and offers "safe haven"

Page 125 - It's pointed out that Iraq had discussed hosting Bin Laden.

Page 128 - It's suggested that a chemical factory is probably the result of an Iraq-Al Qaeda agreement. Chemical evidence backs that up.

Page 134 - The possibility--even likelihood--that Bin Laden would move to Baghdad, if attacked in Afghanistan, and cooperate with Saddam, is discussed.

Page 334 - Report finds anecdotal evidence of an Iraqi link to Al Qaeda, but no compelling case that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Page 335 - DoD presents the three priorities to counter-attack after 9-11: Al Qaeda, The Taliban and Iraq

Page 335 - Bush did not accept that Iraq was an immediate priority and decides that Iraq is off the table, barring new information.

Page 336 - Blair asks about Iraq; Bush tells him Iraq is not the immediate problem.

Page 336 - CENTCOM/General Franks wanted to plan for possible movement against Iraq. Bush rejected it.

Page 502 - Iraqi Fedayeen member not involved with 9/11 plot.

No one here has claimed that Saddam helped on 9-11 - that is a lie the left tries to spread.
<snip>
I had no idea that Dick Cheney is a leftist.

And now I see we're just going to willy-nilly kill peope for who they associate with. No, wait -- I mean for who we say they associate with. They don't actually have to do anything to us. Just taking a meeting with someone who later does something to us is enough to seal someone's doom nowadays? Though, of course, we don't need proof of such associations. We don't need actual proof that Iraq had anything at all to do with al Qaeda at all. Cheney just saying it is good enough. What's to stop a high ranking official from saying that YOU had a long established relationship with al Qaeda, then? Hm?

I had no idea that Dick Cheney is a leftist.

And now I see we're just going to willy-nilly kill peope for who they associate with. No, wait -- I mean for who we say they associate with. They don't actually have to do anything to us. Just taking a meeting with someone who later does something to us is enough to seal someone's doom nowadays? Though, of course, we don't need proof of such associations. We don't need actual proof that Iraq had anything at all to do with al Qaeda at all. Cheney just saying it is good enough. What's to stop a high ranking official from saying that YOU had a long established relationship with al Qaeda, then? Hm?

What a tired line. We have proof, it is not Cheny who said it you moron - I just quoted the 9-11 report.


Oh THATS right! - you only care about the parts of reports that you can use to demonize Americans and the Administration!!! how could I forget!?? :rolleyes:

What was that you were saying about proof again??? Seems you selectively apply it ????? Hmmm????

What a tired line. We have proof, it is not Cheny who said it you moron - I just quoted the 9-11 report.


Oh THATS right! - you only care about the parts of reports that you can use to demonize Americans and the Administration!!! how could I forget!?? :rolleyes:

What was that you were saying about proof again??? Seems you selectively apply it ????? Hmmm????
You live in complete denial my friend:

Transcript for Sept. 14 (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/)
Sunday, September 14, 2003 GUEST: Dick Cheney, vice president Tim Russert, moderator

If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. They understand what’s at stake here. That’s one of the reasons they’re putting up as much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that’s going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.

You live in complete denial my friend:

Transcript for Sept. 14 (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/)
Sunday, September 14, 2003 GUEST: Dick Cheney, vice president Tim Russert, moderator



Ummm dude....you did figure out that the geographic base



IS THE MIDDLE EAST REGION ....didn't you ?:D


Why would you imply he ment Iraq ?


Unless you are not reading your own quote right .

good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so etc.

What a tired line. We have proof, it is not Cheny who said it you moron - I just quoted the 9-11 report.
Excuse me, but I distinctly remember seeing Mr. Cheney himself, with my own eyes, on at least three different television networks, prior to the launch of the war, telling the American people that Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi official in Prague to plan the 9/11 attack. This claim was investigated by the Czech police and declared not true, within a week of it first being stated by Cheney and officials connected to Cheney's office. However, Cheney et als. continued to cite it for several weeks. The police in Prague, btw, used to be the Czech Soviet secret police, so if those fat bastards know how to do anything, it's keep track of foreigners having meetings on their turf. The Czech police can be a right pain in the ass to foreigners, especially if they are already on CIA and international terrorist watch lists. They insist to this day that such a meeting never happened, that Atta was never in Prague. (Also btw, the Czechs were the first to lodge a complaint with the UN, and publicize it to the media, that the CIA had approached them about using old Soviet prisons for secret detentions; they claimed they told the CIA thanks, but no thanks. That's how the world found out about that.)

Oh THATS right! - you only care about the parts of reports that you can use to demonize Americans and the Administration!!! how could I forget!?? :rolleyes:

What was that you were saying about proof again??? Seems you selectively apply it ????? Hmmm????
Look at you, all worked up and slathering on the punctuation marks as if it makes your posts louder. You're cute.

I sure as hell remember the administration implying a conection between 9/11 and Iraq...and just as quickly being smacked down for it .
They then had to make a few speaches to correct it .

unfortunately....people in the US .....STILL....think that Saddam was involved somehow in 9/ 11....despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Evidence does exist that he had some relations with Al-Queda..but they were kind of minimal and embryonic .

But no evidence exist that Saddam had anything to do with 9/ 11 .
at least none I have ever seen or heard of .

I sure as hell remember the administration implying a conection between 9/11 and Iraq...and just as quickly being smacked down for it .
They then had to make a few speaches to correct it .

unfortunately....people in the US .....STILL....think that Saddam was involved somehow in 9/ 11....despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Evidence does exist that he had some relations with Al-Queda..but they were kind of minimal and embryonic .

But no evidence exist that Saddam had anything to do with 9/ 11 .
at least none I have ever seen or heard of .

Neither have I.

I sure as hell remember the administration implying a conection between 9/11 and Iraq...and just as quickly being smacked down for it .
They then had to make a few speaches to correct it .

unfortunately....people in the US .....STILL....think that Saddam was involved somehow in 9/ 11....despite all the evidence to the contrary.
When you think about it, the above is incredibily scary. How does that perception get fostered and how does it get maintained, despite its' falsehoods?

Why didn't we continue with inspections????

Let's ask Hans Blix (JUST before the war):

Blix, who is in charge of monitoring Iraq's chemical, biological and missile programs, bolstered the Bush administration's case that Iraq is lying and hiding banned weaponry, and that without a turnabout in Baghdad's behavior, prolonging inspections would be futile. Blix pointedly did not ask for more time.

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament that was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace," Blix told the Security Council.

Blix tells U.N. Iraq refuses to comply (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.un28jan28,0,1342024.story?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil)

Why didn't we continue with inspections????

Let's ask Hans Blix (JUST before the war):


Blix tells U.N. Iraq refuses to comply (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.un28jan28,0,1342024.story?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil)

Sorry, but...

Please quote from Blix, not some newspaper website if you say let's ask Hans Blix

Also show his februari position...

Why didn't we continue with inspections????

Let's ask Hans Blix (JUST before the war):


Blix tells U.N. Iraq refuses to comply (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.un28jan28,0,1342024.story?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil)
Both you and the Baltimore Sun appear to take Blix out of context. I am not surprised.

Blix's January 27, 2002 Report (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm)

Cooperation on process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct......

UNMOVIC’s capability

Mr President, I must not conclude this “update” without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC.

In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else. Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training programme continues — even at this moment we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we shall have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.

A team supplied by the Swiss Government is refurbishing our offices in Baghdad, which had been empty for four years. The Government of New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German Government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. The Government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a Field Office in Larnaca. All these contributions have been of assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities. So has help from the UN in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.

In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to “freeze” large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.

Setting up a field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area, where we have already inspected a number of sites.

Mr. President,

We have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.

Sorry, but...

Please quote from Blix, not some newspaper website if you say let's ask Hans Blix

Also show his februari position...


Fine. Here you go.

The January speech before the UN.
Resolution 1441 (2002) was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active. The resolution contained many provisions, which we welcome as enhancing and strengthening the inspection regime. The unanimity by which it was adopted sent a powerful signal that the Council was of one mind in creating a last opportunity for peaceful disarmament in Iraq through inspection.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Since 1441 was passed in 2002 and Blix was addressing the fact that Iraq had not fully complied and was still interfering with inspections, this should have been it. How many "last opportunities" are needed??? What happens when you continually threaten aggressive people - then keep backing up?? Answer - you keep backing up over the cliff.





And the February address:

In my earlier briefings, I have noted that significant outstanding issues of substance were listed in two Security Council documents from early 1999 (S/1999/94 and S/1999/356) and should be well known to Iraq. I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles, and said that such issues "deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside…". The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December last year, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.


http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:mfdCa4F6Ab0J:www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp%3FNewsID%3D382%26sID%3D6+Blix+UN+February+2003&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

Both you and the Baltimore Sun appear to take Blix out of context. I am not surprised.

Blix's January 27, 2002 Report (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm)


Sorry but neither the Baltimore Sun nor I did any such thing.

The speech from the UN did say he was cooperating on process on but not on substance. He then listed several instances of non-cooperation.


One of three important questions before us today is how much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991; and, possibly, thereafter; the second question is what, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998, when the inspectors left; and the third question is how it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future.

I thought pre-1991 stuff was not what we were looking for????? That is what you said earlier, isn't it??? So then indeed, the 500 WMD's in the House intelligence committe memo were indeed violations. RIght??? (never mind answering to do so would be akin to you admitting that you are wrong. We both know that would be impossible for you to admit - despite the proof.)


Resolution 1441 (2002) was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active. The resolution contained many provisions, which we welcome as enhancing and strengthening the inspection regime. The unanimity by which it was adopted sent a powerful signal that the Council was of one mind in creating a last opportunity for peaceful disarmament in Iraq through inspection.


I turn now to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq’s response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course.


Blix acknowledged a cooperation on process, but then went on to say a similar cooperation on substance would be needed.

Obviously you are the one misquoting Blix.


I forgot to list his instances of non-cooperation (you know like the article and I said)

Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. I hope this attitude will change.



Another air operation problem – which was solved during our recent talks in Baghdad – concerned the use of helicopters flying into the no-fly zones. Iraq had insisted on sending helicopters of their own to accompany ours. This would have raised a safety problem. The matter was solved by an offer on our part to take the accompanying Iraq minders in our helicopters to the sites, an arrangement that had been practiced by UNSCOM in the past.



I am obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.



On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites.



The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again.



Shortly thereafter, we receive protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not. Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional and, at the same time, correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.



On Substance:

It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of “catch as catch can”. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.

The declaration of 7 December



On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of resolution 1441 (2002) and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome.

One might have expected that in preparing the Declaration, Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the many open disarmament issues, which the Iraqi side should be familiar with from the UNSCOM document S/1999/94 of January1999 and the so-called Amorim Report of March 1999 (S/1999/356). These are questions which UNMOVIC, governments and independent commentators have often cited.



While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current “unresolved disarmament issues” and “key remaining disarmament tasks” in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.



They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq’s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.



I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.




Chemical weapons



The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.



Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.



UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.



There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.



I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.



The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.



The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.



The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.



The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.



I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.



Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.




Biological weapons



I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.



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



There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.



In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.

Then why did Bush regret that Blix had been unable to provide evidence that Saddam had committed a material breach?

There was concern that insufficient evidence had been unearthed by the UN inspection team, led by Dr Hans Blix. Other options were considered.

President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661

Then why did Bush regret that Blix had been unable to provide evidence that Saddam had committed a material breach?


http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661


Because nothing short of Saddam personally placing a WMD in New York City would convince people like you and CH of the need to go in. Even then you would probably try to blame it on us.

The UN is dominated by Anti-Americans and by people like you who cannot seem to see that Saddam is evil and that people like Ahmadinejad are evil and those who lead Hezzbollah, and Hamas are evil.

Poeple like that would rather we play Neville Chamberlain endlessly - until these groups gain the ability to do what they claim to want to do - wipe Israel off the map and then wreak havoc in the U.S.

The speech from the UN did say he was cooperating on process on but not on substance. He then listed several instances of non-cooperation.

One of three important questions before us today is how much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991; and, possibly, thereafter; the second question is what, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998, when the inspectors left; and the third question is how it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future.

I thought pre-1991 stuff was not what we were looking for????? That is what you said earlier, isn't it??? So then indeed, the 500 WMD's in the House intelligence committe memo were indeed violations. RIght??? (never mind answering to do so would be akin to you admitting that you are wrong. We both know that would be impossible for you to admit - despite the proof.)
What parts of the words "might" and "intact" do you fail to understand?

No, your country did not find the WMD that they were looking for. Your government says so, Blix says so, and I will agree with them.

Spin all you want, the fact remains that inspections were going forward and the co-operation on process was good. Taking the inspectors out of Iraq was a huge mistake.

Because nothing short of Saddam personally placing a WMD in New York City would convince people like you and CH of the need to go in. Even then you would probably try to blame it on us.

The UN is dominated by Anti-Americans and by people like you who cannot seem to see that Saddam is evil and that people like Ahmadinejad are evil and those who lead Hezzbollah, and Hamas are evil.

Poeple like that would rather we play Neville Chamberlain endlessly - until these groups gain the ability to do what they claim to want to do - wipe Israel off the map and then wreak havoc in the U.S.

Yeah yeah yeah....Now you've got that out of your system, try answering the question.....

Because nothing short of Saddam personally placing a WMD in New York City would convince people like you and CH of the need to go in. Even then you would probably try to blame it on us.
There was absolutely no need to invade Iraq. None whatsoever. Iraq was certainly no threat to the US, or for that matter, any threat to her neighbours. Robin Cook was right on the money when he issued his retirement speech from the UK government. Read all 3 pages!!

"Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction" (http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=499)

Important excerpts:

I do not think that anybody could have done better than the Foreign Secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council. But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.

Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.

Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.

Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.

it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops. It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk. Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.

For four years as Foreign Secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.

Weapons of mass destruction

Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?

Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq. That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.

The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people. On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound.

They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.
Too bad his peers in the House rejected his call for reasoning. :(

Too bad his peers in the House rejected his call for reasoning. :(


They actually had some common sense.

Then why did Bush regret that Blix had been unable to provide evidence that Saddam had committed a material breach?


http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661



Because you are taking one instance of where there perhaps was not a breach, and extrapolate that to imply that there was no breach whatsoever. Which is not an accurate portrayal of the facts.


The fact of the matter is that there was breach after breach after breach, and each time the UN said - Ok. we'll let it go THIS time, but NEXT time there will be REALLY serious consequences. After the 15th or 16th time, you think that perhaps people might stop taking you seriously???


LOL

The UN was in effect saying: Next time you violate this mandate, the consequences will be dire and earth shattering, - we will send a STRONGLY worded letter to you!

i have a question : when is a lie,a lie?
When come the urge believing anything?
Why deception throught lies,why does it always appears political based?
Is there a geo politic ethic up there?
Knok!3x
You are beeing fooled.
You don't know what a choice is.

The unleashing of the war. The lack of justifications

The official legal justifications of the war have been that Iraq had violated a number of resolutions of the Security Council and that action was taken to “uphold the authority of the Council”.

However, it seems strange that individual members of the Council could have the right to uphold an authority that the majority does not want to exercise.

If the US, UK and Spain had such an authority to intervene presumably Russia, China, France and Germany could have taken action – different action.

It seems evident to me that it was for he Council as a whole to decide and that the Council was ignored.

The main political justification of the war was that Iraq had illegally retained weapons of mass destruction and that these constituted a threat to the US, the UK and the world.

However, the closer we got to the day of unleashing the armed action the weaker the less credible the evidence looked.

A contract between Iraq and Niger for the import of uranium oxide and mentioned by President Bush in his state of the Union message, was shown to have been a forgery…

If inspections had continued for another few months we would have been able to inspect all sites suspected by intelligence organizations and – as there were no weapons – we would have found them empty and so reported to the Security Council and to those who had given us the tips.

The war might not have been waged.

Excerpt from Weapons of Mass Destruction, Terrorism, Global Security (http://www.maximsnews.com/2005hansblixmexico28january.htm)

by Hans Blix

The unleashing of the war. The lack of justifications

The official legal justifications of the war have been that Iraq had violated a number of resolutions of the Security Council and that action was taken to “uphold the authority of the Council”.

However, it seems strange that individual members of the Council could have the right to uphold an authority that the majority does not want to exercise.

If the US, UK and Spain had such an authority to intervene presumably Russia, China, France and Germany could have taken action – different action.

It seems evident to me that it was for he Council as a whole to decide and that the Council was ignored.

The main political justification of the war was that Iraq had illegally retained weapons of mass destruction and that these constituted a threat to the US, the UK and the world.

However, the closer we got to the day of unleashing the armed action the weaker the less credible the evidence looked.

A contract between Iraq and Niger for the import of uranium oxide and mentioned by President Bush in his state of the Union message, was shown to have been a forgery…

If inspections had continued for another few months we would have been able to inspect all sites suspected by intelligence organizations and – as there were no weapons – we would have found them empty and so reported to the Security Council and to those who had given us the tips.

The war might not have been waged.

Excerpt from Weapons of Mass Destruction, Terrorism, Global Security (http://www.maximsnews.com/2005hansblixmexico28january.htm)

by Hans Blix


If inspections had continued for another few months we would have been able to inspect all sites

Who is we?
i'd like to visit US.UK.French etc...facilities too

Who is we?
i'd like to visit US.UK.French etc...facilities too

Actually, I believe all of those countries are not in violation of standing treaties by having their weapons, and even at that, allow inspections of many of their sites voluntarily.

Actually, I believe all of those countries are not in violation of standing treaties by having their weapons, and even at that, allow inspections of many of their sites voluntarily.
they may be allow it but since they can use it. well everybody knows it.

Are you able to visite Albion?

Except in quite a few areas of the middle east and indonesia, where people danced.

:rolleyes: Do I doubt that some people found joy in our suffering? No. But I don't doubt either that even some Americans, the Tim McVeigh types that are still among us, were glad to see carnage. There are 6 billion people on this planet. For any given conceivable point of view, you can find someone, somewhere, who believes the exact opposite.

Except in quite a few areas of the middle east and indonesia, where people danced.
And how many tens of millions of Americans tuned in to watch the "Shock and Awe Show"? How many were proud of the way that US troops were kicking Iraq in the butt hard, even though they played no part in 9/11? How many Americans wanted to turn Iraq into a sheet of glass or a huge parking lot?

And what is the cost of this so called revenge? Increased terrorism and even more people hating and mistrusting your country. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have paid the ultimate price for George Bush's folly. The War of Error based on lies and deception continues in Iraq and no one knows when it will end and what the final price will be in terms of lives and dollars and cents, and future pain and suffering. My guess is that the ledger will be awash in red ink, and too many people with blood on their hands.

And how many tens of millions of Americans tuned in to watch the "Shock and Awe Show"? How many were proud of the way that US troops were kicking Iraq in the butt hard, even though they played no part in 9/11? How many Americans wanted to turn Iraq into a sheet of glass or a huge parking lot?

And what is the cost of this so called revenge? Increased terrorism and even more people hating and mistrusting your country. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have paid the ultimate price for George Bush's folly. The War of Error based on lies and deception continues in Iraq and no one knows when it will end and what the final price will be in terms of lives and dollars and cents, and future pain and suffering. My guess is that the ledger will be awash in red ink, and too many people with blood on their hands.


Yep. decreasing deaths since we went in VS Saddam's reign of terror is a horrible thing!


I guess it was a good thing no one did anything in Rwanda! You've convinced me CH!!!!!

:rolleyes:

Yep. decreasing deaths since we went in VS Saddam's reign of terror is a horrible thing!
You mean the reign of terror aided and abetted by the US, which also ended in 1991?

Nice try to deflect the blame, but it is the US that is responsible for increasing the number of Iraqi deaths since the reign of terror ended 15 years ago.

You mean the reign of terror aided and abetted by the US, which also ended in 1991?

Nice try to deflect the blame, but it is the US that is responsible for increasing the number of Iraqi deaths since the reign of terror ended 15 years ago.


Saddam by no means ended his reign of terror. If that is what you are referring to, you are simply ignorant to the truth.

Saddam's reign of terror ended when we went into Iraq and kicked him out in 2003, and since then the # of violent deaths has dropped dramatically.

Saddam by no means ended his reign of terror. If that is what you are referring to, you are simply ignorant to the truth.
That would be a matter of your opinion. :rolleyes:

It would appear that most of your talking points so far have been just that....talking points.

Saddam's reign of terror ended when we went into Iraq and kicked him out in 2003, and since then the # of violent deaths has dropped dramatically.
I know we have bandied about numbers earlier in another thread, but can you give proof to your claim that Saddam is responsible for more violent deaths SINCE 1991, up to and including when he was deposed in 2003, than the US invasion is responsible for (approximately 100,000)?

Please do not include the Shiites (encouraged by George the Elder) that rebelled at the end of the Gulf War and dealt with accordingly.

That would be a matter of your opinion. :rolleyes:

It would appear that most of your talking points so far have been just that....talking points.


I know we have bandied about numbers earlier in another thread, but can you give proof to your claim that Saddam is responsible for more violent deaths SINCE 1991, up to and including when he was deposed in 2003, than the US invasion is responsible for (approximately 100,000)?

Please do not include the Shiites (encouraged by George the Elder) that rebelled at the end of the Gulf War and dealt with accordingly.


Let it be known that CH gives Saddam a pass for using WMD's against the Kurds, but is all upset about us ending his reign of terror.

Nice to finally have confirmed (as if we didn't know already) which side you are on.

Please do not include the Shiites (encouraged by George the Elder) that rebelled at the end of the Gulf War and dealt with accordingly.


I guess that means that Western Govts should be able to deal with dissent the way Saddam did???

If not, why the double standard??? I think you are right!!! Bush should treat the leftists in America exactly like Saddam treated those who crossed him! :rolleyes:

Let it be known that CH gives Saddam a pass for using WMD's against the Kurds, but is all upset about us ending his reign of terror.
I didn't give him a pass, but you gave him the gas. :rolleyes:

Did the US break off diplomatic relations with Iraq after this happened? NO.
Did Bob Dole state that Saddam was a good friend to the US in 1990? YES

Yes, your Republican friends enlisted Saddam, took him off the terrorist nation list, gave him chemical and biological agents, provided intel, and turned a blind eye to the use of chemicals against the Iranians.

For you to suggest that I am giving this guy a pass is utter BS.

Nice to finally have confirmed (as if we didn't know already) which side you are on.
Nice try, but wrong answer. If I was in charge of your troop deployment, there would be 2700+ US troops still alive, or at least not dead as a result of fighting a bullshit war in Iraq. There would also be 20,000 less US wounded.

There would be approximately 100,000 more Iraqis alive, and the US wouldn't have had to borrow $300 Billion to destroy Iraq.

Saddam would still be in power, but the inspections would have been completed and the sanctions lifted. Iraqi oil would be flowing freely and the price of oil would be a lot less than $80 a barrel.

There would be no insurgency or threat of civil war in Iraq, and the terrorists would not have a training ground.

There would have been no abuse at Abu Gharib and America's prestige would be a lot higher than it is right now.

So much for your claim as to whose side I am on. :p

I guess that means that Western Govts should be able to deal with dissent the way Saddam did???
I am sure that if there was a militant uprising in the US it would be dealt with by force. We have seen that in the past....remember Kent State? We see that when US protesters take to the streets. Remember Detroit early 70's, and the riots in Watts? Last year in New Orleans....

If not, why the double standard??? I think you are right!!! Bush should treat the leftists in America exactly like Saddam treated those who crossed him! :rolleyes:
You would probably enjoy that. I do believe that you dislike democracy.

Did the US break off diplomatic relations with Iraq after this happened? NO.
Did Bob Dole state that Saddam was a good friend to the US in 1990? YES



The US was one of the first to condemn him. What you describe above is what you wanted us to continue to do - use diplomatic methods. But you are hell bent on condemning America no matter what they do. They tried this way for decades and we finally realized that diplomacy does not work with men who are evil. You damned us for that then when we finally did something that was effective at stopping him, you damned us again. You are a Saddam apologist and a irrational critic of America. Keep siding with the bad guys there CH and you just might get your wish to live under Sharia law.



I didn't give him a pass, but you gave him the gas. :rolleyes:
Yes, your Republican friends enlisted Saddam, took him off the terrorist nation list, gave him chemical and biological agents, provided intel, and turned a blind eye to the use of chemicals against the Iranians.

The center for disease control gave him materials for vaccinations - you know, the same thing we do to help poor nations fight disease epidemics.
Maybe we should stop spending BILLIONS to fight disease in Africa??? After all they can be used to make weapons! Is that what you want?? Condemn the poor to a miserable death?

It is funny how you use dual use materials to condemn the US, but use them to exonerate Saddam. Can you say MASSIVE double standard????

Again your hatred betrays you.

For you to suggest that I am giving this guy a pass is utter BS.

I agree you are full of BS, but I think your own words make this pretty damned clear.

Let me quote you: Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven View Post

Please do not include the Shiites (encouraged by George the Elder) that rebelled at the end of the Gulf War and dealt with accordingly.


'nuff said.


Nice try, but wrong answer. If I was in charge of your troop deployment, there would be 2700+ US troops still alive, or at least not dead as a result of fighting a bullshit war in Iraq.

There are fewer deaths per year of US Soldiers in Iraq than in Jimmy Carter's last year as President.

http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf


There would be approximately 100,000 more Iraqis alive, and the US wouldn't have had to borrow $300 Billion to destroy Iraq.

Prove it. I have already shown this to be a flat out lie. Your comeback???

"Don't count those Saddam killed in two major campaigns of terror.- they deserved it" (accurately paraphrased)

By that standard, I think we should give Hitler a pass on the 6 million Jews he murdered!:rolleyes:

You are absolutely astonishing in your apologizing for Saddam!

Saddam would still be in power, but the inspections would have been completed and the sanctions lifted.

Iraqi oil would be flowing freely and the price of oil would be a lot less than $80 a barrel.

This is true, and Saddam's programs would be up and running full steam, WMD's would be given to terrorists to bomb western cities, and roughly 71,000 Iraqi people who opposed saddam would be dying violent deaths every year.


So much for your claim as to whose side I am on.

There is no Doubt. Saddam appreciates your support, as does, I am sure, Osama.

This thread is still going on?

The arguments are repeating itself.

The US was one of the first to condemn him. What you describe above is what you wanted us to continue to do - use diplomatic methods. But you are hell bent on condemning America no matter what they do. They tried this way for decades and we finally realized that diplomacy does not work with men who are evil. You damned us for that then when we finally did something that was effective at stopping him, you damned us again. You are a Saddam apologist and a irrational critic of America. Keep siding with the bad guys there CH and you just might get your wish to live under Sharia law.

The center for disease control gave him materials for vaccinations - you know, the same thing we do to help poor nations fight disease epidemics.
Maybe we should stop spending BILLIONS to fight disease in Africa??? After all they can be used to make weapons! Is that what you want?? Condemn the poor to a miserable death?

It is funny how you use dual use materials to condemn the US, but use them to exonerate Saddam. Can you say MASSIVE double standard????

Again your hatred betrays you.

I agree you are full of BS, but I think your own words make this pretty damned clear.

Let me quote you:

'nuff said.

There are fewer deaths per year of US Soldiers in Iraq than in Jimmy Carter's last year as President.

http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf

Prove it. I have already shown this to be a flat out lie. Your comeback???

"Don't count those Saddam killed in two major campaigns of terror.- they deserved it" (accurately paraphrased)

By that standard, I think we should give Hitler a pass on the 6 million Jews he murdered!:rolleyes:

You are absolutely astonishing in your apologizing for Saddam!

This is true, and Saddam's programs would be up and running full steam, WMD's would be given to terrorists to bomb western cities, and roughly 71,000 Iraqi people who opposed saddam would be dying violent deaths every year.

There is no Doubt. Saddam appreciates your support, as does, I am sure, Osama.
This is exactly the kind of rhetorical answer that I expect from a staunch Bush apologist, who obviously does not know his ass from a hole in the ground. You live in complete denial and continue to perpetuate the lies and deception that emanate from the Bush administration. The mere suggestion that I am an apologist for Saddam and Bin Laden, and that I am desirous of living under Sharia laws accentuates the depth and depravity that you are willing to submit to in order to peddle your propaganda.

Trying to pin "hatred" on me is especially laughable. I hate no one. However, your obvious hatred has been well noted on these boards and throughout these threads. Since you claim to be religious, all I can do is pray for you to overcome the obvious burden that you carry.

This thread is still going on?

The arguments are repeating itself.
Perhaps you are correct. I will asked for the thread to be closed.

Perhaps you are correct. I will asked for the thread to be closed.


Perhaps you should prove your allegations first. 100,000 dead at that hands of the US would be a good place to start. We can move on from there.