Saddam's Philippines Terror Connection

[palehorse]

I'd really love to see a post in which Steeplerot lists any/all of the good things America has done, worldwide, during the last 100 years or so. I'd really like to see how long that list is since I've never seen her give America positive credit for anything!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

He did the first part, the UN inspectors destroyed the rest of his stockpiles in the aftermath, that was their job for the first few years. After years of the inspectors walking all over the country finding nothing Saddam started to limit their access which was the reason why they left.

Throughout the inspection period people actually belived he still was hiding something but no one had any facts regarding that matter. On that very belive the war was waged but only because the US said it had facts.. when they had none.

You are still not justified even if the US does find some evidence because the evidence presented and used as a reason has all been found majorily flawed. This is the same as if the Police would use bogus evidence to raid and arrest a suspect, find nothing. But many months or years afterwards they find evidence. Sure yes, the suspect is guilty but the Police would be guilty as well.

But ultimatly how it sets in the public, in the politicians it all depends on what evidence could be found. If its directly related to the evidence the US presented then it will go mostly as justified, but if it is unrelated to the evidence presented then the justification is still not there.

There is still about 400 tons of mustard gas and 20-80 tons of VX unaccounted for. He didnt provide proof of destruction on this and kicking UN inspectors out in 1998 voided the other part of the ceasefire that mandated unrestricted access. Something he never complied with but really didnt comply when booting them out of the country.

And I am not arguing the evidence we find will justify our invasion. I am arguing the evidence we had in 2002 does. Saddam didnt comply, the simple fact is in 1998 when he kicked UN inspectors out he should have been removed from power as he violated the ceasefire agreement. But the UN was as usual ineffective with dealing with the situation.

He couldnt provide that proof because he had none. And he did not kick them out, the inspectors left because Saddam had not been giving them full access, few hours after the US started airstrikes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

What evidence did we have in 2002? that he didnt allow the inspectors full acess? Shortly before the war Saddam did allow them back in with full access.

He might have violated the agreement, but it should have been up to the security council to declare if it was broken or not.

In a lettet dated Aug 5th 1998 Iraq ceased all cooperation with the inspection teams and would block their entry into premises. They reiterated this on Oct 31st of that year.
They were forced back into compliance but eventually the UN left again because of the same reason on Dec 6th.

And I dont know how or why you cant understand that through declarations or known stockpiles that we gave\sold him that he could have provided proof. He broke the major parts of the ceasefire agreement. He should have been dealt with in 1998 but the world didnt.

And the security coucil as we have seen had their hand in the cookie jar with Iraq. You werent going to get a fair shake at any resolutions concerning the use of force because it would cut off the racket they had going in Iraq.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'd really love to see a post in which Steeplerot lists any/all of the good things America has done, worldwide, during the last 100 years or so. I'd really like to see how long that list is since I've never seen her give America positive credit for anything!

Who cares? He's just one person with his own opinion just like you are. IMO you are both extremists whose opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'd really love to see a post in which Steeplerot lists any/all of the good things America has done, worldwide, during the last 100 years or so. I'd really like to see how long that list is since I've never seen her give America positive credit for anything!

Who cares? He's just one person with his own opinion just like you are. IMO you are both extremists whose opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.

I know, they sound like the odd couple. They need each other so they can reaffirm their beliefs about the other side.

 

[Steeplerot]

Why would I come to a politics forum if it was not to complain about what I see as wrong?

If you want smoke pumped up your ass about america go watch fox, this is a place to debate.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Todd33

I know, they sound like the odd couple. They need each other so they can reaffirm their beliefs about the other side.

feh, moderates in here are not worth arguing with as far as a entertainment factor goes, and no, I don't hate or dislike anyone in here becasue of their current stance on worldviews, (unless it's a goosestepping-granola-crunching-neocon-peacenik like Reddawn)

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Why would I come to a politics forum if it was not to complain about what I see as wrong?

If you want smoke pumped up your ass about america go watch fox, this is a place to debate.

I would just like to see if there is anything at all about America that you actually think is "good" or "decent". something specific. list one single thing that America has done during the last 100 years, that you actually see as positive.

I've never seen you do it. I believe that you think America is the most evil country on earth. I really do believe that...

your exact words:

Wrong, we have been using the world as our toilet paper since far before 1945 seeing fit to wipe where is convienent to our interests.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

He did the first part, the UN inspectors destroyed the rest of his stockpiles in the aftermath, that was their job for the first few years. After years of the inspectors walking all over the country finding nothing Saddam started to limit their access which was the reason why they left.

Throughout the inspection period people actually belived he still was hiding something but no one had any facts regarding that matter. On that very belive the war was waged but only because the US said it had facts.. when they had none.

You are still not justified even if the US does find some evidence because the evidence presented and used as a reason has all been found majorily flawed. This is the same as if the Police would use bogus evidence to raid and arrest a suspect, find nothing. But many months or years afterwards they find evidence. Sure yes, the suspect is guilty but the Police would be guilty as well.

But ultimatly how it sets in the public, in the politicians it all depends on what evidence could be found. If its directly related to the evidence the US presented then it will go mostly as justified, but if it is unrelated to the evidence presented then the justification is still not there.

There is still about 400 tons of mustard gas and 20-80 tons of VX unaccounted for. He didnt provide proof of destruction on this and kicking UN inspectors out in 1998 voided the other part of the ceasefire that mandated unrestricted access. Something he never complied with but really didnt comply when booting them out of the country.

And I am not arguing the evidence we find will justify our invasion. I am arguing the evidence we had in 2002 does. Saddam didnt comply, the simple fact is in 1998 when he kicked UN inspectors out he should have been removed from power as he violated the ceasefire agreement. But the UN was as usual ineffective with dealing with the situation.

He couldnt provide that proof because he had none. And he did not kick them out, the inspectors left because Saddam had not been giving them full access, few hours after the US started airstrikes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

What evidence did we have in 2002? that he didnt allow the inspectors full acess? Shortly before the war Saddam did allow them back in with full access.

He might have violated the agreement, but it should have been up to the security council to declare if it was broken or not.

In a lettet dated Aug 5th 1998 Iraq ceased all cooperation with the inspection teams and would block their entry into premises. They reiterated this on Oct 31st of that year.
They were forced back into compliance but eventually the UN left again because of the same reason on Dec 6th.

And I dont know how or why you cant understand that through declarations or known stockpiles that we gave\sold him that he could have provided proof. He broke the major parts of the ceasefire agreement. He should have been dealt with in 1998 but the world didnt.

And the security coucil as we have seen had their hand in the cookie jar with Iraq. You werent going to get a fair shake at any resolutions concerning the use of force because it would cut off the racket they had going in Iraq.

How could they proove it if it was not documented?

It would seem pretty obvios that regarding not allowing the weapon inspectors free movement the UN security council must have done something if it was brought up for vote. But it wasnt brought up to vote. In the eyes of the world something must have been done.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

He did the first part, the UN inspectors destroyed the rest of his stockpiles in the aftermath, that was their job for the first few years. After years of the inspectors walking all over the country finding nothing Saddam started to limit their access which was the reason why they left.

Throughout the inspection period people actually belived he still was hiding something but no one had any facts regarding that matter. On that very belive the war was waged but only because the US said it had facts.. when they had none.

You are still not justified even if the US does find some evidence because the evidence presented and used as a reason has all been found majorily flawed. This is the same as if the Police would use bogus evidence to raid and arrest a suspect, find nothing. But many months or years afterwards they find evidence. Sure yes, the suspect is guilty but the Police would be guilty as well.

But ultimatly how it sets in the public, in the politicians it all depends on what evidence could be found. If its directly related to the evidence the US presented then it will go mostly as justified, but if it is unrelated to the evidence presented then the justification is still not there.

There is still about 400 tons of mustard gas and 20-80 tons of VX unaccounted for. He didnt provide proof of destruction on this and kicking UN inspectors out in 1998 voided the other part of the ceasefire that mandated unrestricted access. Something he never complied with but really didnt comply when booting them out of the country.

And I am not arguing the evidence we find will justify our invasion. I am arguing the evidence we had in 2002 does. Saddam didnt comply, the simple fact is in 1998 when he kicked UN inspectors out he should have been removed from power as he violated the ceasefire agreement. But the UN was as usual ineffective with dealing with the situation.

He couldnt provide that proof because he had none. And he did not kick them out, the inspectors left because Saddam had not been giving them full access, few hours after the US started airstrikes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

What evidence did we have in 2002? that he didnt allow the inspectors full acess? Shortly before the war Saddam did allow them back in with full access.

He might have violated the agreement, but it should have been up to the security council to declare if it was broken or not.

In a lettet dated Aug 5th 1998 Iraq ceased all cooperation with the inspection teams and would block their entry into premises. They reiterated this on Oct 31st of that year.
They were forced back into compliance but eventually the UN left again because of the same reason on Dec 6th.

And I dont know how or why you cant understand that through declarations or known stockpiles that we gave\sold him that he could have provided proof. He broke the major parts of the ceasefire agreement. He should have been dealt with in 1998 but the world didnt.

And the security coucil as we have seen had their hand in the cookie jar with Iraq. You werent going to get a fair shake at any resolutions concerning the use of force because it would cut off the racket they had going in Iraq.

How could they proove it if it was not documented?

It would seem pretty obvios that regarding not allowing the weapon inspectors free movement the UN security council must have done something if it was brought up for vote. But it wasnt brought up to vote. In the eyes of the world something must have been done.

These stockpiles were documented, that was the problem.
And why bother bringing up a council resolution when the people on the take will simply veto it? That and the fact Clinton was in no position to force Saddams hands anyways. He was still recovering from Somalia and the Yugoslav mission.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

He did the first part, the UN inspectors destroyed the rest of his stockpiles in the aftermath, that was their job for the first few years. After years of the inspectors walking all over the country finding nothing Saddam started to limit their access which was the reason why they left.

Throughout the inspection period people actually belived he still was hiding something but no one had any facts regarding that matter. On that very belive the war was waged but only because the US said it had facts.. when they had none.

You are still not justified even if the US does find some evidence because the evidence presented and used as a reason has all been found majorily flawed. This is the same as if the Police would use bogus evidence to raid and arrest a suspect, find nothing. But many months or years afterwards they find evidence. Sure yes, the suspect is guilty but the Police would be guilty as well.

But ultimatly how it sets in the public, in the politicians it all depends on what evidence could be found. If its directly related to the evidence the US presented then it will go mostly as justified, but if it is unrelated to the evidence presented then the justification is still not there.

There is still about 400 tons of mustard gas and 20-80 tons of VX unaccounted for. He didnt provide proof of destruction on this and kicking UN inspectors out in 1998 voided the other part of the ceasefire that mandated unrestricted access. Something he never complied with but really didnt comply when booting them out of the country.

And I am not arguing the evidence we find will justify our invasion. I am arguing the evidence we had in 2002 does. Saddam didnt comply, the simple fact is in 1998 when he kicked UN inspectors out he should have been removed from power as he violated the ceasefire agreement. But the UN was as usual ineffective with dealing with the situation.

He couldnt provide that proof because he had none. And he did not kick them out, the inspectors left because Saddam had not been giving them full access, few hours after the US started airstrikes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

What evidence did we have in 2002? that he didnt allow the inspectors full acess? Shortly before the war Saddam did allow them back in with full access.

He might have violated the agreement, but it should have been up to the security council to declare if it was broken or not.

In a lettet dated Aug 5th 1998 Iraq ceased all cooperation with the inspection teams and would block their entry into premises. They reiterated this on Oct 31st of that year.
They were forced back into compliance but eventually the UN left again because of the same reason on Dec 6th.

And I dont know how or why you cant understand that through declarations or known stockpiles that we gave\sold him that he could have provided proof. He broke the major parts of the ceasefire agreement. He should have been dealt with in 1998 but the world didnt.

And the security coucil as we have seen had their hand in the cookie jar with Iraq. You werent going to get a fair shake at any resolutions concerning the use of force because it would cut off the racket they had going in Iraq.

How could they proove it if it was not documented?

It would seem pretty obvios that regarding not allowing the weapon inspectors free movement the UN security council must have done something if it was brought up for vote. But it wasnt brought up to vote. In the eyes of the world something must have been done.

These stockpiles were documented, that was the problem.
And why bother bringing up a council resolution when the people on the take will simply veto it? That and the fact Clinton was in no position to force Saddams hands anyways. He was still recovering from Somalia and the Yugoslav mission.

Like alot of military equipment documents get lost, the US for example should know that when I think last year they discovered lost piles of chemical weapons. Non documented disposal of the chemical weapons Iraq had was the explination the inspectors gave afterwards if I remember correctly.

The people in the council and who they were reprisenting were not in the take, as far as we know. But only people from their respective countries.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

He did the first part, the UN inspectors destroyed the rest of his stockpiles in the aftermath, that was their job for the first few years. After years of the inspectors walking all over the country finding nothing Saddam started to limit their access which was the reason why they left.

Throughout the inspection period people actually belived he still was hiding something but no one had any facts regarding that matter. On that very belive the war was waged but only because the US said it had facts.. when they had none.

You are still not justified even if the US does find some evidence because the evidence presented and used as a reason has all been found majorily flawed. This is the same as if the Police would use bogus evidence to raid and arrest a suspect, find nothing. But many months or years afterwards they find evidence. Sure yes, the suspect is guilty but the Police would be guilty as well.

But ultimatly how it sets in the public, in the politicians it all depends on what evidence could be found. If its directly related to the evidence the US presented then it will go mostly as justified, but if it is unrelated to the evidence presented then the justification is still not there.

There is still about 400 tons of mustard gas and 20-80 tons of VX unaccounted for. He didnt provide proof of destruction on this and kicking UN inspectors out in 1998 voided the other part of the ceasefire that mandated unrestricted access. Something he never complied with but really didnt comply when booting them out of the country.

And I am not arguing the evidence we find will justify our invasion. I am arguing the evidence we had in 2002 does. Saddam didnt comply, the simple fact is in 1998 when he kicked UN inspectors out he should have been removed from power as he violated the ceasefire agreement. But the UN was as usual ineffective with dealing with the situation.

He couldnt provide that proof because he had none. And he did not kick them out, the inspectors left because Saddam had not been giving them full access, few hours after the US started airstrikes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

What evidence did we have in 2002? that he didnt allow the inspectors full acess? Shortly before the war Saddam did allow them back in with full access.

He might have violated the agreement, but it should have been up to the security council to declare if it was broken or not.

In a lettet dated Aug 5th 1998 Iraq ceased all cooperation with the inspection teams and would block their entry into premises. They reiterated this on Oct 31st of that year.
They were forced back into compliance but eventually the UN left again because of the same reason on Dec 6th.

And I dont know how or why you cant understand that through declarations or known stockpiles that we gave\sold him that he could have provided proof. He broke the major parts of the ceasefire agreement. He should have been dealt with in 1998 but the world didnt.

And the security coucil as we have seen had their hand in the cookie jar with Iraq. You werent going to get a fair shake at any resolutions concerning the use of force because it would cut off the racket they had going in Iraq.

How could they proove it if it was not documented?

It would seem pretty obvios that regarding not allowing the weapon inspectors free movement the UN security council must have done something if it was brought up for vote. But it wasnt brought up to vote. In the eyes of the world something must have been done.

These stockpiles were documented, that was the problem.
And why bother bringing up a council resolution when the people on the take will simply veto it? That and the fact Clinton was in no position to force Saddams hands anyways. He was still recovering from Somalia and the Yugoslav mission.

Like alot of military equipment documents get lost, the US for example should know that when I think last year they discovered lost piles of chemical weapons. Non documented disposal of the chemical weapons Iraq had was the explination the inspectors gave afterwards if I remember correctly.

The people in the council and who they were reprisenting were not in the take, as far as we know. But only people from their respective countries.

I would find it hard to believe Saddams regime would simply "lose" WMDs. The Iraqi's under Saddam were very well documented. You have to remember every pound of VX his regime loses could be a pound that ends up in an oppositition group that may just send him a gift of VX for dinner.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

With thousands of lives wasted and given the proper number of years of deficit spending? our government can come up with most anything. Thank you Bush Jr. for restoring my faith in government waste!

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Palenhorse74: You sure do post a lot- way to contribute!

Originally posted by: palehorse74
the sad fact is that even when we eventually uncovered mountains of proof linking Saddam to terrorism, the anti's still won't ever admit to being wrong in that regard... ever. Their pride and agenda prevent them from doing so!

Congrats on learning how to talk out your a$$. If someday you come up with clear sources you might earn some respect from the moderates.

Originally posted by: palehorse74
try opening your eyes for once.

Another zinger! It?s almost clever how you avoid logic when making your arguments.

Originally posted by: palehorse74
lol.. they wouldn't know the "truth" if it arrived wearing a backpack full of C4 on their front doorstep.

Do you think your sharp political insights can cut through most any argument?

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm serious! Some people, like Steeple, truly consider our side to be the evil ones in all of this. She honestly considers all of our troops to be sociopathic murderers, and Bush and Rumsfeld to be real life versions of Austin Powers!

coocoo coocoo!

Wow, you are a clever factory! Good for you!

Originally posted by: palehorse74
what's a "large percentage" to you? can you please qualify and quanitfy that statement?

I was there. IMO, of those I met, fought, or interacted with, perhaps only 5% of Iraqi's considered us "evil," or wished us dead.

But then again, maybe you've been there and experienced otherwise? no? I thought not...

gogo CNN warrior! hooah!

Once again, good for you- don?t let facts get in your way. Perhaps you can reference your argument?

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Want the answers to those questions? Then I suggest you read Understanding Terror Networks by Marc Sageman... it's an empiricle study of terrorism from the socio-psychological standpoint. as in, "who joins terror cells, how, and why"...

start there!

What?s an empirical? Did you mean empirical? It?s kind of cool the way you go about trying to answer rhetorical questions.

Originally posted by: palehorse74
my "own ideas" on the origins of terrorism, and the who, how, and why they join terrorist groups are based on research and firsthand experience. That said, every theory in the world is just that, a theory. So what do you want?

I prefer firsthand experiences combined with empirical and analytical research to meer speculation... maybe you dont.

Great now you?re not just a quack, but you?re a terrorist too?

Originally posted by: palehorse74
why do you still live in America? just curious...

Yikes, now that?s a brave attack. Let me get this right- if you don?t agree with me you don?t belong in the same country as me? Or is it a reference to a need for sheepish thought? You?ll have to let me know what exactly is wrong with you here.

Originally posted by: palehorse74
you didn't answer my question. if/when you do, I'll address yours.

I just don't understand why you stay here since you consider America the most evil country in the world. You basically said above that we have done nothing positive since 1945, and that everything we do is evil and turns to sh*t. So this begs the question, why do you stay?

I think I?m getting you now? if you have a problem with anything that happens around you, don?t even consider making a difference, just pack up and leave. Very cowardly advice if you ask me.

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'd really love to see a post in which Steeplerot lists any/all of the good things America has done, worldwide, during the last 100 years or so. I'd really like to see how long that list is since I've never seen her give America positive credit for anything!

Is this list that important to you? Do you need to have America praised in a list? I?m sorry for you. Even while not liking Bush Jr. and crew I can maintain pride in being an American.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Kappo-

"Sorry man, Im really not going to pollute my mind with some nitwit liberal's rantings. Hell, I can make it look like my small business made money last year if I tweak it right. I had 0 customers and no revenue

I can make things up, I can post them in a blog, and it MUST be true. Oh, but he has sources to ... oh yeah.. nothing! "

So, uhh, when things aren't really the way you think they should be, you simply close your eyes and your mind, attack the source...

Palast's numbers are easily verifiable- Big oil enjoyed record profits in 2005 (google is full of the news) and the average price of a barrel of crude doubled in 5 years, even adjusted for inflation...

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Infl...n_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

But, of course, ideology trumps facts every time, right? Which led you to post this little bit of denial-

"Um.. no.. he has zero evidence of anything he posted. Post a link to someone with a real reputation and Ill consider it. Until then, blame yourself for not listening to Ann Coltier because you are set in your ways!"

The numbers remain the same, whether they're posted in the Weekly Standard or anywhere else- OPEC and Big Oil have profited tremendously from the turmoil of Iraq.

And there's this-

"The reason my mindset is confusing is because I dont pick a side. Liberals make me sick and conservatives piss me off. "

Funny you'd say that, considering that you've followed the Bushist line every inch of the way in this discussion...

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

He did the first part, the UN inspectors destroyed the rest of his stockpiles in the aftermath, that was their job for the first few years. After years of the inspectors walking all over the country finding nothing Saddam started to limit their access which was the reason why they left.

Throughout the inspection period people actually belived he still was hiding something but no one had any facts regarding that matter. On that very belive the war was waged but only because the US said it had facts.. when they had none.

You are still not justified even if the US does find some evidence because the evidence presented and used as a reason has all been found majorily flawed. This is the same as if the Police would use bogus evidence to raid and arrest a suspect, find nothing. But many months or years afterwards they find evidence. Sure yes, the suspect is guilty but the Police would be guilty as well.

But ultimatly how it sets in the public, in the politicians it all depends on what evidence could be found. If its directly related to the evidence the US presented then it will go mostly as justified, but if it is unrelated to the evidence presented then the justification is still not there.

There is still about 400 tons of mustard gas and 20-80 tons of VX unaccounted for. He didnt provide proof of destruction on this and kicking UN inspectors out in 1998 voided the other part of the ceasefire that mandated unrestricted access. Something he never complied with but really didnt comply when booting them out of the country.

And I am not arguing the evidence we find will justify our invasion. I am arguing the evidence we had in 2002 does. Saddam didnt comply, the simple fact is in 1998 when he kicked UN inspectors out he should have been removed from power as he violated the ceasefire agreement. But the UN was as usual ineffective with dealing with the situation.

He couldnt provide that proof because he had none. And he did not kick them out, the inspectors left because Saddam had not been giving them full access, few hours after the US started airstrikes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

What evidence did we have in 2002? that he didnt allow the inspectors full acess? Shortly before the war Saddam did allow them back in with full access.

He might have violated the agreement, but it should have been up to the security council to declare if it was broken or not.

In a lettet dated Aug 5th 1998 Iraq ceased all cooperation with the inspection teams and would block their entry into premises. They reiterated this on Oct 31st of that year.
They were forced back into compliance but eventually the UN left again because of the same reason on Dec 6th.

And I dont know how or why you cant understand that through declarations or known stockpiles that we gave\sold him that he could have provided proof. He broke the major parts of the ceasefire agreement. He should have been dealt with in 1998 but the world didnt.

And the security coucil as we have seen had their hand in the cookie jar with Iraq. You werent going to get a fair shake at any resolutions concerning the use of force because it would cut off the racket they had going in Iraq.

How could they proove it if it was not documented?

It would seem pretty obvios that regarding not allowing the weapon inspectors free movement the UN security council must have done something if it was brought up for vote. But it wasnt brought up to vote. In the eyes of the world something must have been done.

These stockpiles were documented, that was the problem.
And why bother bringing up a council resolution when the people on the take will simply veto it? That and the fact Clinton was in no position to force Saddams hands anyways. He was still recovering from Somalia and the Yugoslav mission.

Like alot of military equipment documents get lost, the US for example should know that when I think last year they discovered lost piles of chemical weapons. Non documented disposal of the chemical weapons Iraq had was the explination the inspectors gave afterwards if I remember correctly.

The people in the council and who they were reprisenting were not in the take, as far as we know. But only people from their respective countries.

I would find it hard to believe Saddams regime would simply "lose" WMDs. The Iraqi's under Saddam were very well documented. You have to remember every pound of VX his regime loses could be a pound that ends up in an oppositition group that may just send him a gift of VX for dinner.

I'm not saying that the wmd's were lost, could have been, dont know. What I'm saying is that their destruction in the aftermath of the first gulf war wasnt documented.

Also could also be just lost somewhere in the desert, dug down during the first gulf war like some of those Mig jets we have pictures of.

Very hard to say for a fact what went on, we can only draw the most likely assumption. And on any assumption we cant go to war on.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

He did the first part, the UN inspectors destroyed the rest of his stockpiles in the aftermath, that was their job for the first few years. After years of the inspectors walking all over the country finding nothing Saddam started to limit their access which was the reason why they left.

Throughout the inspection period people actually belived he still was hiding something but no one had any facts regarding that matter. On that very belive the war was waged but only because the US said it had facts.. when they had none.

You are still not justified even if the US does find some evidence because the evidence presented and used as a reason has all been found majorily flawed. This is the same as if the Police would use bogus evidence to raid and arrest a suspect, find nothing. But many months or years afterwards they find evidence. Sure yes, the suspect is guilty but the Police would be guilty as well.

But ultimatly how it sets in the public, in the politicians it all depends on what evidence could be found. If its directly related to the evidence the US presented then it will go mostly as justified, but if it is unrelated to the evidence presented then the justification is still not there.

There is still about 400 tons of mustard gas and 20-80 tons of VX unaccounted for. He didnt provide proof of destruction on this and kicking UN inspectors out in 1998 voided the other part of the ceasefire that mandated unrestricted access. Something he never complied with but really didnt comply when booting them out of the country.

And I am not arguing the evidence we find will justify our invasion. I am arguing the evidence we had in 2002 does. Saddam didnt comply, the simple fact is in 1998 when he kicked UN inspectors out he should have been removed from power as he violated the ceasefire agreement. But the UN was as usual ineffective with dealing with the situation.

He couldnt provide that proof because he had none. And he did not kick them out, the inspectors left because Saddam had not been giving them full access, few hours after the US started airstrikes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

What evidence did we have in 2002? that he didnt allow the inspectors full acess? Shortly before the war Saddam did allow them back in with full access.

He might have violated the agreement, but it should have been up to the security council to declare if it was broken or not.

In a lettet dated Aug 5th 1998 Iraq ceased all cooperation with the inspection teams and would block their entry into premises. They reiterated this on Oct 31st of that year.
They were forced back into compliance but eventually the UN left again because of the same reason on Dec 6th.

And I dont know how or why you cant understand that through declarations or known stockpiles that we gave\sold him that he could have provided proof. He broke the major parts of the ceasefire agreement. He should have been dealt with in 1998 but the world didnt.

And the security coucil as we have seen had their hand in the cookie jar with Iraq. You werent going to get a fair shake at any resolutions concerning the use of force because it would cut off the racket they had going in Iraq.

How could they proove it if it was not documented?

It would seem pretty obvios that regarding not allowing the weapon inspectors free movement the UN security council must have done something if it was brought up for vote. But it wasnt brought up to vote. In the eyes of the world something must have been done.

These stockpiles were documented, that was the problem.
And why bother bringing up a council resolution when the people on the take will simply veto it? That and the fact Clinton was in no position to force Saddams hands anyways. He was still recovering from Somalia and the Yugoslav mission.

Like alot of military equipment documents get lost, the US for example should know that when I think last year they discovered lost piles of chemical weapons. Non documented disposal of the chemical weapons Iraq had was the explination the inspectors gave afterwards if I remember correctly.

The people in the council and who they were reprisenting were not in the take, as far as we know. But only people from their respective countries.

I would find it hard to believe Saddams regime would simply "lose" WMDs. The Iraqi's under Saddam were very well documented. You have to remember every pound of VX his regime loses could be a pound that ends up in an oppositition group that may just send him a gift of VX for dinner.

I'm not saying that the wmd's were lost, could have been, dont know. What I'm saying is that their destruction in the aftermath of the first gulf war wasnt documented.

Also could also be just lost somewhere in the desert, dug down during the first gulf war like some of those Mig jets we have pictures of.

Very hard to say for a fact what went on, we can only draw the most likely assumption. And on any assumption we cant go to war on.

I thought we destroyed WMDs in the first gulf war by blowing them up in buildings and that was said to be the cause of Gulf War Syndrome?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

He did the first part, the UN inspectors destroyed the rest of his stockpiles in the aftermath, that was their job for the first few years. After years of the inspectors walking all over the country finding nothing Saddam started to limit their access which was the reason why they left.

Throughout the inspection period people actually belived he still was hiding something but no one had any facts regarding that matter. On that very belive the war was waged but only because the US said it had facts.. when they had none.

You are still not justified even if the US does find some evidence because the evidence presented and used as a reason has all been found majorily flawed. This is the same as if the Police would use bogus evidence to raid and arrest a suspect, find nothing. But many months or years afterwards they find evidence. Sure yes, the suspect is guilty but the Police would be guilty as well.

But ultimatly how it sets in the public, in the politicians it all depends on what evidence could be found. If its directly related to the evidence the US presented then it will go mostly as justified, but if it is unrelated to the evidence presented then the justification is still not there.

There is still about 400 tons of mustard gas and 20-80 tons of VX unaccounted for. He didnt provide proof of destruction on this and kicking UN inspectors out in 1998 voided the other part of the ceasefire that mandated unrestricted access. Something he never complied with but really didnt comply when booting them out of the country.

And I am not arguing the evidence we find will justify our invasion. I am arguing the evidence we had in 2002 does. Saddam didnt comply, the simple fact is in 1998 when he kicked UN inspectors out he should have been removed from power as he violated the ceasefire agreement. But the UN was as usual ineffective with dealing with the situation.

He couldnt provide that proof because he had none. And he did not kick them out, the inspectors left because Saddam had not been giving them full access, few hours after the US started airstrikes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

What evidence did we have in 2002? that he didnt allow the inspectors full acess? Shortly before the war Saddam did allow them back in with full access.

He might have violated the agreement, but it should have been up to the security council to declare if it was broken or not.

In a lettet dated Aug 5th 1998 Iraq ceased all cooperation with the inspection teams and would block their entry into premises. They reiterated this on Oct 31st of that year.
They were forced back into compliance but eventually the UN left again because of the same reason on Dec 6th.

And I dont know how or why you cant understand that through declarations or known stockpiles that we gave\sold him that he could have provided proof. He broke the major parts of the ceasefire agreement. He should have been dealt with in 1998 but the world didnt.

And the security coucil as we have seen had their hand in the cookie jar with Iraq. You werent going to get a fair shake at any resolutions concerning the use of force because it would cut off the racket they had going in Iraq.

How could they proove it if it was not documented?

It would seem pretty obvios that regarding not allowing the weapon inspectors free movement the UN security council must have done something if it was brought up for vote. But it wasnt brought up to vote. In the eyes of the world something must have been done.

These stockpiles were documented, that was the problem.
And why bother bringing up a council resolution when the people on the take will simply veto it? That and the fact Clinton was in no position to force Saddams hands anyways. He was still recovering from Somalia and the Yugoslav mission.

Like alot of military equipment documents get lost, the US for example should know that when I think last year they discovered lost piles of chemical weapons. Non documented disposal of the chemical weapons Iraq had was the explination the inspectors gave afterwards if I remember correctly.

The people in the council and who they were reprisenting were not in the take, as far as we know. But only people from their respective countries.

I would find it hard to believe Saddams regime would simply "lose" WMDs. The Iraqi's under Saddam were very well documented. You have to remember every pound of VX his regime loses could be a pound that ends up in an oppositition group that may just send him a gift of VX for dinner.

I'm not saying that the wmd's were lost, could have been, dont know. What I'm saying is that their destruction in the aftermath of the first gulf war wasnt documented.

Also could also be just lost somewhere in the desert, dug down during the first gulf war like some of those Mig jets we have pictures of.

Very hard to say for a fact what went on, we can only draw the most likely assumption. And on any assumption we cant go to war on.

I thought we destroyed WMDs in the first gulf war by blowing them up in buildings and that was said to be the cause of Gulf War Syndrome?

also a possibility and nothing documented

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Tab
I thought we destroyed WMDs in the first gulf war by blowing them up in buildings and that was said to be the cause of Gulf War Syndrome?

also a possibility and nothing documented

Actually, rather well-documented:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/khamisiyah_ii/khamisiyah_ii_s06.htm#back%20en%20181

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/envs/scud_irfna.htm

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/khamisiyah_index.html

 

[Alistar7]

And I dont know how or why you cant understand that through declarations or known stockpiles that we gave\sold him that he could have provided proof. He broke the major parts of the ceasefire agreement. He should have been dealt with in 1998 but the world didnt.

And the security coucil as we have seen had their hand in the cookie jar with Iraq. You werent going to get a fair shake at any resolutions concerning the use of force because it would cut off the racket they had going in Iraq.

There is still about 400 tons of mustard gas and 20-80 tons of VX unaccounted for.


Also some facts that shouldn't be ignored, well said gen....

 

[conjur]

Unaccounted for <> existing.



Get it yet?


Blix, Ritter, Kay, and even Duelfer say there are NO WMDs!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur
Unaccounted for <> existing.

Get it yet?

Blix, Ritter, Kay, and even Duelfer say there are NO WMDs!

good for them. The short answer is: only time will tell.

the long answer would involve me starting out by saying to you "Who the fvck cares at this point? why don't you focus on solving the problems in Iraq here and now?! Once that's done, THEN you can whine and harp on what got us into it in the first place! deal?"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Unaccounted for <> existing.

Get it yet?

Blix, Ritter, Kay, and even Duelfer say there are NO WMDs!

good for them. The short answer is: only time will tell.

Time has already told. Get over it. You support liars and thieves that are trodding upon the US Consitution you have repeatedly stated you swore to uphold but we all know better than that, don't we?

the long answer would involve me starting out by saying to you "Who the fvck cares at this point? why don't you focus on solving the problems in Iraq here and now?! Once that's done, THEN you can whine and harp on what got us into it in the first place! deal?"

*I* give a fvck. And so do almost 50% of Americans that want to see impeachment hearings. This is not a time to give this administration a free pass on their crimes against this nation.

The problems in Iraq cannot be solved by "staying the course".

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Justification after the fact isn't justification at all, particularly when there's been ample time and reason to massage the record... It wouldn't be the first time that forgery and false testimony were trotted out in support of the war.

Maybe they'll release documents covering the discussions during Rummy's visit in the 80's... probably not, huh?

That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks. Thanks for the laugh!!!