but found weapon systems that were banned. Not finding something doesn;t mean its not there, don't tell me when you can find your car keys they cease to exist.
but found weapon systems that were banned. Not finding something doesn;t mean its not there, don't tell me when you can find your car keys they cease to exist.
So where would you categorize me? I'm not saying he has them, nor am I saying no way (by the way, who says no way?) What I am saying is that he may have them, he probably does. But until you have proof that he does, it's not correct to say that you know for a fact that he does.
Is there any prowar person here who understands? Is a prerequisite for being prowar an unwillingness to admit that so far WMD are simply a matter of probablility and not a certainty? Is everyone who is prowar using the same logic..."He didn't provide proof that he destroyed them, therefore it's a fact that he does"?
Let me reiterate. It's my opinion that he probably does have WMD, but it's incorrect to say that it's known fact that he does.
It's amusing that you neglect to mention that the inspections began last fall and that it wasn't until earlier this year that the Iraqis were forced to admit that the Al Samoud missiles were in violation of the UN restrictions. Only after a deadline was set for destruction to begin did Iraq do anything and then they started a very plodding and ponderous destruction process which they didn't allow anyone to photograph.
The fundamental misconception of the inspection fanboys is that the inspectors were there to find weapons. THEY WERE NEVER INTENDED TO BE 'INSPECTORS' -- THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE. The onus for action was on Saddam, not on Hans Blix. The inspectors were not going in to root around dark basements to find weapons hidden under burlap. Saddam and his regime were supposed to show them documents and material proving that they had destroyed all the weapons which they previously declared and which were proscribed by the UN.
Answer one simple yes or no question: Did Saddam and his regime do that?
Another question: Has even Hans Blix ever stated that Saddam was in full cooperation with the inspection process?
Base your empty arguments off the answers to those two questions.
heres my 2 cents:
Concerning the Metallica comment:
the U.N did not approve of taking military action on Iraq.
Concerning U.N Resolutions and agreements:
The current U.S. administration says Iraqi defiance of 17 U.N. resolutions within the past 12 years makes Iraq a pariah, an outlaw state that must be dealt with forcibly.
The U.S. administration does not reveal that Israel is currently in violation of 32 U.N. resolutions since 1968. According to U.N. transcripts, Turkey has violated 24 resolutions, and Morocco has violated 17 resolutions concerning the Western Sahara conflict and the plight of people of Western Sahara.
Concerning "Liberation of the Iraqi People"
Since when has the United States cared about the human rights of other countries? since Rwanda?
Concerning U.N Resolution 1411 as a pretext for war.
UN Resolution 1411 states:
UN Resolution 1441 would not only put pressure on Iraq and Saddam to reform and cooperate with U.N. inspectors, but this assumed that it would stave off military confrontation.
We seemed to have taken this resolution based on other resolutions since 91, out of context, and merely using a technicality in language to justify our only cause for war
In my opinion, The United States failing to gain worldwide support for its aggressions used a technicality of ?putting pressure on Iraq and Saddam to reform? as war. Obviously anyone level headed would agree that the language difference between putting pressure on, and applying military pressure, is absolutely opposite.
The only reason I am against the war is because i disapprove of the inconsistencies in U.S foreign policy.
I do not think Saddam is a good man, I do not deny nor confirm that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons. The Iraqi people I have talked to do not support Saddam, but they do not support a U.S led reconstruction period neither.
The thought of 3 former U.S generals running Iraq is just as bad as Saddam.
I think that after this war will be a dawn of a new era, the 21st century. The 20th century started in peace, and booming economies, but turned out to see the greatest Wars known to man. The 21st century will start with War, and escalate to the greatest Wars yet to be seen. We have drawn the line in this last conflict. We have set precedent to fight a war (outside of self-defense) without U.N approval. This is a scary situation. I hope you realize this grave reality we have made for ourselves, especially those who support this war. what a sad sad world.
I will depart with a quote from Nelson Mandela..
"What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust." ?
"Because they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that, who are they now to pretend that they are the policeman of the world?
"lf there is a country which has committed unspeakable atrocities, it is the United States of America. They don't care for human beings."
"I hope that that opposition will one day make him understand that he has made the greatest mistake of his life,"
comments are welcome.
Concerning the Metallica comment:
the U.N did not approve of taking military action on Iraq.
Concerning U.N Resolutions and agreements:
The current U.S. administration says Iraqi defiance of 17 U.N. resolutions within the past 12 years makes Iraq a pariah, an outlaw state that must be dealt with forcibly.
The U.S. administration does not reveal that Israel is currently in violation of 32 U.N. resolutions since 1968. According to U.N. transcripts, Turkey has violated 24 resolutions, and Morocco has violated 17 resolutions concerning the Western Sahara conflict and the plight of people of Western Sahara.
Concerning "Liberation of the Iraqi People"
Since when has the United States cared about the human rights of other countries? since Rwanda?
Concerning U.N Resolution 1411 as a pretext for war.
UN Resolution 1411 states:
UN Resolution 1441 would not only put pressure on Iraq and Saddam to reform and cooperate with U.N. inspectors, but this assumed that it would stave off military confrontation.
We seemed to have taken this resolution based on other resolutions since 91, out of context, and merely using a technicality in language to justify our only cause for war
In my opinion, The United States failing to gain worldwide support for its aggressions used a technicality of ?putting pressure on Iraq and Saddam to reform? as war. Obviously anyone level headed would agree that the language difference between putting pressure on, and applying military pressure, is absolutely opposite.
The only reason I am against the war is because i disapprove of the inconsistencies in U.S foreign policy.
I do not think Saddam is a good man, I do not deny nor confirm that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons. The Iraqi people I have talked to do not support Saddam, but they do not support a U.S led reconstruction period neither.
The thought of 3 former U.S generals running Iraq is just as bad as Saddam.
I think that after this war will be a dawn of a new era, the 21st century. The 20th century started in peace, and booming economies, but turned out to see the greatest Wars known to man. The 21st century will start with War, and escalate to the greatest Wars yet to be seen. We have drawn the line in this last conflict. We have set precedent to fight a war (outside of self-defense) without U.N approval. This is a scary situation. I hope you realize this grave reality we have made for ourselves, especially those who support this war. what a sad sad world.
I will depart with a quote from Nelson Mandela..
"What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust." ?
"Because they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that, who are they now to pretend that they are the policeman of the world?
"lf there is a country which has committed unspeakable atrocities, it is the United States of America. They don't care for human beings."
"I hope that that opposition will one day make him understand that he has made the greatest mistake of his life,"
comments are welcome.
UN Resolution 1441
No it doesn't state that. This is what it states..
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,
....
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,
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;
...
There also is this.
Attorney General's Iraq response
I wouldn't quote that little bit of befuddled tripe from Mandela. It does not help your case.
As I stated the joke was getting stupid and i ended it. I never said that the un approved taking military action at all. Don't be an asshat.
What are they in violation of? Pollution or Slaughtering of its people, development of illegal weapons and supporting terror. I think thats more important than the number of violations. All UN resolutions have consequences if they are not followed built into the resolution itself.
If they are doing the same thing as Iraq should we attack them next?
If you say no i don't understand why you would bring it up.
yeah cause the US doesn't spend millions of dollars in international aid every year.
The first gulf war ended in a cease fire stating that Iraq would not have, research or sell WMD, missile that can travel over 150 KM or the spy drone. These objects, except for WMD, have been found so far in Iraq. Wouldn't logic suggest that the cease fire should cease?
The whole 20th century was one war after another.
1898 Spanish-American War.
1904-05 Russo-Japenesse War.
1913 Balken War
1914 The Great War (WWI)
1939-45 WWII
1945-late 90's Cold War
booming economies um... that didn't last too long maybe 10-20 years remember the great depression? it was bad.
Funny...this is exactly what I've been saying about people knowing Saddam has WMD. You really shouldn't criticize people for not letting FACTS get in the way of what THEY BELIEVE when you yourself are saying KNOWN WMD.
dude nobody said that they KNOW that he has them, and if they did KNOW I would really like to see this proof.
This one?
To this I can only guess that he is refering to the unknown gases and powered that was found recently but they have not been proven to be WMD.
If he is not talking about this then he is talking about the WMD materials that have not been documented as being destroyed... the problem with that arguement is that you don't know if they are in the country hidden, if Saddam actually destroyed them but was not smart enough to document it or sold them.
I have not claimed in my posts to know that WMD are in Iraq but that he has weapon systems that violate the ceasefire.
He was referring the known amounts of Anthrax and VX Saddam claimed to have but did not show proof of destroying. And I doubt it was that Saddam 'was not smart enough to document it'. It's possible he may have sold them...but...to whom? Al Qaeda, perhaps?
<shrug>
Trezza - I commend you on the fact that you concede that WMD are only a possibility at this time. There are way too many people here who know for a fact that Saddam has WMD. Like I said, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it's discovered that he does have them, I think he probably does. But probably isn't certainty.
Alistar7, conjur, plus a number of people in this thread need to comprehend that.
Alistar7, conjur, plus a number of people in this thread need to comprehend that.
What's even more amusing is all those people in this forum appointing themselves the power to declare what Iraq should and should not do, and if Iraq has violated 1441. I don't mean to brag, but I received two master's degree and travel outside of US extensively and I leave the decision to UN, rather then deciding on my own if Iraq violated or did not violate 1441. Why? because I am smart enough to know that I don't know jack when it comes international law and UN affair. All I know is, UN was still in process of weapon inspection and has not decided if Iraq was in material breach of 1441 before the war started.
Simple fact:
UN (including US and UK) agreed on resolution 1441
Security council did not vote nor decide that Iraq violated 1441
Inspection was still on going before the war started, meaning the inspector has not concluded that Iraq violated 1441.
It's amazing to see how much people think they know by sitting on their @ss all day and clicking on a few links.
Let me see some credential like some kind of degree or experience remotely related to international affair and I may listen to you instead of UN.
rchiu
Yes, the US the UK and the entire UN Security Council unanimously voted for 1441. Then in Jan. France said they would veto any resolution that would enforce it. No use having a vote if it was only going to be vetoed.
The inspections had been going on since 1991. This was a last and final chance for Saddam to fully cooperate with the inspectors. He didn't.
Yes, the US the UK and the entire UN Security Council unanimously voted for 1441. Then in Jan. France said they would veto any resolution that would enforce it. No use having a vote if it was only going to be vetoed.
The inspections had been going on since 1991. This was a last and final chance for Saddam to fully cooperate with the inspectors. He didn't.
I am sure you know very well why US and UK did not push for a vote, that 's because they were not able to get the 9 votes necessary. The reason they cited not pushing for a vote because France was going to veto it was created just to save face.
With all the phone tapping and behind the scene negotiation going on, US diplomates knew very well who was going to vote yes and no. If US and UK could have gathered 9 votes, even with veto from France or Russia, they would have pushed for a vote. France would have been the bad guy if they veto the majority since they would have been the one going against the will of international community. US and UK could have declared, and rightfully so, that they had the backing of international community if they have the 9 votes.
Either way, no one other than UN can decide if Saddam fully cooperated with the inspector or if he has failed 1441, not you, or I or US can decide that on our own. It is a fact that US and UK bypassed UN on deciding if Iraq violated 1441, and this war is not sanctioned by UN. So don't argue how this war is justified because YOU THINK that saddam failed the requirement of 1441, UN certainly did not declared that.
I am going by the statements of Hans Blix. He never stated that Iraq had met all of the conditions of 1441. He never stated that the cooperation that Iraq was showing met fully the conditions of 1441.
If you had read the reports that are available you would know that.
If you had read the reports that are available you would know that.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter