CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF WMD & Why has the UN still not lifted sanctions on Iraq.

[Alistar7]

Yup that's right, there is a 12,000 page document in the UN submitted by Saddam himself outlining his WMD programs, where is the conclusive proof he agreed to provide they were destroyed? We waited 12 years for that and he knew where everything was, the US not having this intimate firsthand knowledge should be given at least 18 years to find the evidence. If you can't accept Saddam's word on what he had, then your denial is beyond repair.

This is for everyone who feels there is some burden of proof on the coalition, sorry, that burden was given to and accepted by Saddam.

BTW would someone please tell the UN to lift the sanctions on Iraq? Granted we did in less than 30 days what they couldn't do in over 12 years, but they could at least hopefully get that taken care of this decade.

France, Germany, and Russia seem so concerned over the plight of the Iraqi people, why are they not pushing for this now? They have been doing so ever since Saddam started giving them vast amounts of money in 1996, now that they cash cow is gone they suddenly don't care about the effects of the sanctions? Instead they have meetings together to organize a plan that will allow them to profit SOME MORE of the people of Iraq.

I want to see a new poll, I want to know how the people of Iraq feel about their oppostion, from what I have seen so far they are not too happy about this right now....

 

[MC]

This is for everyone who feels there is some burden of proof on the coalition, sorry, that burden was given to and accepted by Saddam.

I'm slow on this but could you elaborate that?

Thanks.

 

[Grakatt]

"The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, just four days after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. When the coalition war had ousted Iraq from Kuwait the following year, the Council did not lift the sanctions, keeping them in place as leverage to press for Iraqi disarmament, return of prisoners of war and other goals. The sanctions have remained in place ever since. The US and UK governments made it clear early on that they would block any lifting of sanctions as long as Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein remains in power. Though the international community increasingly criticized the sanctions because of their harsh impact on innocent Iraqi civilians and their lack of pressure on Hussein, the US and the UK have blocked many proposed reforms"

Just to point out that the sanctions probably did more harm than good, and the U.S didn't exactly want them gone.

As for what has happened to the sanctions now, or will happen very soon, I would like to know too. It certainly seems as if though they should be killed.

 

[dahunan]

I am curious to kow whose fault it was that the sanctions did not do any good?

Was it because Saddam was going to Murder any Iraqi citizen who tried to seek fair and equal treatment?

Didn't Saddam Hussein build 30 or 50 NEW palaces while his country was under UN sanctions???

Can anyone explain what the next logical step is after sanctions are claearly identified as ineffective? Just remove the sanctions because they weren't working in the first place? Ask Saddam to seek his feminine side and repent and show a true love for his people instead of being a selfish tyrannical murderous megalomaniac?

 

[Alistar7]

They won't even qustion the true motives of the countries trying to have the sanctions lifted, lol, FOLLOW THE MONEY.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: MC

This is for everyone who feels there is some burden of proof on the coalition, sorry, that burden was given to and accepted by Saddam.

I'm slow on this but could you elaborate that?

Thanks.

No problem, as one of the conditions of the PAUSE of the Gulf War, Saddam was required to accurately detail his WMD and PROVE they were destroyed. He did submit a report to the UN, stating a total of 21 companies had helped build his programs, 2 from the US, 19 from EU (14 from Germany, although France was actually his biggest supplier in quantity). He never provided the evidence to show they were destroyed, there are TONS of nerve agents and THOUSANDS of liters of anthrax unnaccounted for to this day. He accepted the burden of proof willingly, just as willingly as he broke 17 resolutions 333 times. He just never provided any evidence.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: MC

This is for everyone who feels there is some burden of proof on the coalition, sorry, that burden was given to and accepted by Saddam.

I'm slow on this but could you elaborate that?

Thanks.

He is addressing those who feel their need for the coalition (US + UK etc) to prove that Iraq has WMD as opposed to the burden actually being on Iraq to prove that they don't have WMD. That burden was accepted by Saddam when he gave the UN a 12,000 page document which contained the information about his WMD etc and said he would prove that he got rid of the said weapons.

 

[MC]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: MC

This is for everyone who feels there is some burden of proof on the coalition, sorry, that burden was given to and accepted by Saddam.

I'm slow on this but could you elaborate that?

Thanks.

No problem, as one of the conditions of the PAUSE of the Gulf War, Saddam was required to accurately detail his WMD and PROVE they were destroyed. He did submit a report to the UN, stating a total of 21 companies had helped build his programs, 2 from the US, 19 from EU (14 from Germany, although France was actually his biggest supplier in quantity). He never provided the evidence to show they were destroyed, there are TONS of nerve agents and THOUSANDS of liters of anthrax unnaccounted for to this day. He accepted the burden of proof willingly, just as willingly as he broke 17 resolutions 333 times. He just never provided any evidence.

I see, he never provide the evidence to show they were destroyed doesn't mean they didn't distroy them. Now, i'm not saying that i believe saddam detroyed his WMD already, i'm just saying, what if U.S. couldn't find WMD in the following days, or weeks in Iraq ???

 

[MC]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: MC

This is for everyone who feels there is some burden of proof on the coalition, sorry, that burden was given to and accepted by Saddam.

I'm slow on this but could you elaborate that?

Thanks.

He is addressing those who feel their need for the coalition (US + UK etc) to prove that Iraq has WMD as opposed to the burden actually being on Iraq to prove that they don't have WMD. That burden was accepted by Saddam when he gave the UN a 12,000 page document which contained the information about his WMD etc and said he would prove that he got rid of the said weapons.

Understood, it's a good point and i agreed that It's Saddam and Iraq's responsibility to prove that they disarmed all the WMD.

I'm just really curious where are all the WMDs.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: MC

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: MC

This is for everyone who feels there is some burden of proof on the coalition, sorry, that burden was given to and accepted by Saddam.

I'm slow on this but could you elaborate that?

Thanks.

No problem, as one of the conditions of the PAUSE of the Gulf War, Saddam was required to accurately detail his WMD and PROVE they were destroyed. He did submit a report to the UN, stating a total of 21 companies had helped build his programs, 2 from the US, 19 from EU (14 from Germany, although France was actually his biggest supplier in quantity). He never provided the evidence to show they were destroyed, there are TONS of nerve agents and THOUSANDS of liters of anthrax unnaccounted for to this day. He accepted the burden of proof willingly, just as willingly as he broke 17 resolutions 333 times. He just never provided any evidence.

I see, he never provide the evidence to show they were destroyed doesn't mean they didn't distroy them. Now, i'm not saying that i believe saddam detroyed his WMD already, i'm just saying, what if U.S. couldn't find WMD in the following days, or weeks in Iraq ???

Lets assume he did destroy all of them. What would have happened? The inspections would have stopped, the sacntions would have been lifted, he would have stayed in power. He could have done this in 2 years and stayed in power, with no international oversight or restrictions, and used the Iraqi oil reserves to build a MODERN army. Thank god he is not an intelligent man.

He did say he had gotten rid of all of them, he was only one step away from the outcome I outlined above, he didn't keep the very evidence he knew he had to provide, the same evidence that would have saved his a*s from what is happening now. What do you really think, he did everything he was supposed to but "forgot" to save the only thing that could have saved him?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: MC

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: MC

This is for everyone who feels there is some burden of proof on the coalition, sorry, that burden was given to and accepted by Saddam.

I'm slow on this but could you elaborate that?

Thanks.

He is addressing those who feel their need for the coalition (US + UK etc) to prove that Iraq has WMD as opposed to the burden actually being on Iraq to prove that they don't have WMD. That burden was accepted by Saddam when he gave the UN a 12,000 page document which contained the information about his WMD etc and said he would prove that he got rid of the said weapons.

Understood, it's a good point and i agreed that It's Saddam and Iraq's responsibility to prove that they disarmed all the WMD.

I'm just really curious where are all the WMDs.

More than likely some were already given away, we need to make sure that doesn't happen again.
Maybe the Ricin found in Paris recently came from there, the French are convinced it was Al-Queeda that was respopnsible and we did capture a terrorist camp in Iraq run by known associates of Al-Queeda, we also found recipes and dispersion manuals for WMD, traces of Ricin were also found. That would be fantastic in my book, to be able to prove some of Iraq's WMD were being used by Al-Queeda against those that opposed the war because this was not a "likely conclusion".

 

[MC]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: MC

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: MC

This is for everyone who feels there is some burden of proof on the coalition, sorry, that burden was given to and accepted by Saddam.

I'm slow on this but could you elaborate that?

Thanks.

No problem, as one of the conditions of the PAUSE of the Gulf War, Saddam was required to accurately detail his WMD and PROVE they were destroyed. He did submit a report to the UN, stating a total of 21 companies had helped build his programs, 2 from the US, 19 from EU (14 from Germany, although France was actually his biggest supplier in quantity). He never provided the evidence to show they were destroyed, there are TONS of nerve agents and THOUSANDS of liters of anthrax unnaccounted for to this day. He accepted the burden of proof willingly, just as willingly as he broke 17 resolutions 333 times. He just never provided any evidence.

I see, he never provide the evidence to show they were destroyed doesn't mean they didn't distroy them. Now, i'm not saying that i believe saddam detroyed his WMD already, i'm just saying, what if U.S. couldn't find WMD in the following days, or weeks in Iraq ???

Lets assume he did destroy all of them. What would have happened? The inspections would have stopped, the sacntions would have been lifted, he would have stayed in power. He could have done this in 2 years and stayed in power, with no international oversight or restrictions, and used the Iraqi oil reserves to build a MODERN army. Thank god he is not an intelligent man.

He did say he had gotten rid of all of them, he was only one step away from the outcome I outlined above, he didn't keep the very evidence he knew he had to provide, the same evidence that would have saved his a*s from what is happening now. What do you really think, he did everything he was supposed to but "forgot" to save the only thing that could have saved him?

^^ my last post

Understood, it's a good point and i agreed that It's Saddam and Iraq's responsibility to prove that they disarmed all the WMD.

I'm just really curious where are all the WMDs.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: MC

This is for everyone who feels there is some burden of proof on the coalition, sorry, that burden was given to and accepted by Saddam.

I'm slow on this but could you elaborate that?

Thanks.

No problem, as one of the conditions of the PAUSE of the Gulf War, Saddam was required to accurately detail his WMD and PROVE they were destroyed. He did submit a report to the UN, stating a total of 21 companies had helped build his programs, 2 from the US, 19 from EU (14 from Germany, although France was actually his biggest supplier in quantity). He never provided the evidence to show they were destroyed, there are TONS of nerve agents and THOUSANDS of liters of anthrax unnaccounted for to this day. He accepted the burden of proof willingly, just as willingly as he broke 17 resolutions 333 times. He just never provided any evidence.

heh you got yours in before I did

I see, he never provide the evidence to show they were destroyed doesn't mean they didn't distroy them. Now, i'm not saying that i believe saddam detroyed his WMD already, i'm just saying, what if U.S. couldn't find WMD in the following days, or weeks in Iraq ???

The problem is he agreed to destroy the weapons AND provide proof of the destroyed weapons. Instead he says the weapons were destroyed, provides no proof, and continues to interfere with UN inspections over the last 12 years. If the US can't find WMD in Iraq I still don't see a problem. Saddam was obviously a menace to the Iraqi people, and has been non-compliant with the UN resolutions for over a decade; he does not deserve to be in a position of power.

 

[Alistar7]

another day with sanctions in effect, way to go UN...

 

[Chadder007]

More proof the UN is worthless.

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Yup that's right, there is a 12,000 page document in the UN submitted by Saddam himself outlining his WMD programs, where is the conclusive proof he agreed to provide they were destroyed? We waited 12 years for that and he knew where everything was, the US not having this intimate firsthand knowledge should be given at least 18 years to find the evidence. If you can't accept Saddam's word on what he had, then your denial is beyond repair.

This is for everyone who feels there is some burden of proof on the coalition, sorry, that burden was given to and accepted by Saddam.

BTW would someone please tell the UN to lift the sanctions on Iraq? Granted we did in less than 30 days what they couldn't do in over 12 years, but they could at least hopefully get that taken care of this decade.

France, Germany, and Russia seem so concerned over the plight of the Iraqi people, why are they not pushing for this now? They have been doing so ever since Saddam started giving them vast amounts of money in 1996, now that they cash cow is gone they suddenly don't care about the effects of the sanctions? Instead they have meetings together to organize a plan that will allow them to profit SOME MORE of the people of Iraq.

I want to see a new poll, I want to know how the people of Iraq feel about their oppostion, from what I have seen so far they are not too happy about this right now....

I'm not sure if you understand the issue at hand. His document provides nothing new. Everybody knew he had it (France and Germany included). Resolution 1441 acknowledges Iraq is in violation of previous resolutions. The question is whether or not he has it now and that's what 1441 was designed to do; conduct inspections while acknowledging he is in violation.

 

[seawolf21]

And furthermore. we signed off on 1441 okaying inspections. However, the inspections were never completely because we declared war before it was finished. Basically, the message is sends is that you can't trust the US to honor its UN agreements.

 

[MonkeyK]

Lets assume he did destroy all of them. What would have happened? The inspections would have stopped, the sacntions would have been lifted, he would have stayed in power. He could have done this in 2 years and stayed in power, with no international oversight or restrictions, and used the Iraqi oil reserves to build a MODERN army. Thank god he is not an intelligent man.

He did say he had gotten rid of all of them, he was only one step away from the outcome I outlined above, he didn't keep the very evidence he knew he had to provide, the same evidence that would have saved his a*s from what is happening now. What do you really think, he did everything he was supposed to but "forgot" to save the only thing that could have saved him?

Actually, Saddam would not have stayed in power in this case. It could very well be that the ambiguity of his military capability was the only think keeping his country intact.
Think about it, as a country in a part of the world known for fighting, warlords, and insurrections, would you advertise that you have no military power?

 

[sandorski]

The premise of this thread is rather weak. That is: The UN sucks, because it continues to impose sanctions against Iraq. If you consider that the current situation prevents any kind of economic activity by Iraq, you see that if the sanctions were indeed still being enforced, they would be a big improvement over the current situation.

Another attempt to distract one from the true concern. That is: What are my leaders doing.

 

[oLLie]

Originally posted by: seawolf21
And furthermore. we signed off on 1441 okaying inspections. However, the inspections were never completely because we declared war before it was finished. Basically, the message is sends is that you can't trust the US to honor its UN agreements.

I was not aware that the word 'inspection' has the same meaning as the words 'searching game'. I thought inspection referred to the fact that UN inspectors were going to inspect his destroyed WMD's/UN resolution violations or inspect his proof of destroyed WMD/UN resolution violations... not go searching around in areas the UN had to guess may contain weapons. I may just have misinterpreted though

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: seawolf21
And furthermore. we signed off on 1441 okaying inspections. However, the inspections were never completely because we declared war before it was finished. Basically, the message is sends is that you can't trust the US to honor its UN agreements.

Do realize just how ridiculous that statement sounds? I would have to say we definately honored the part about the "Serious Consequences".:beer: