The Bush admin is still lying to start a war - Page 4  

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

You said that he would only disarm with force. Explain to me what "force" is.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, I said we could force him to disarm. We're doing it now with a credible threat, sanctions, inspections.

I never get direct answers from you, but what the hell I'll try again.

How long do you think a credible threat of force can be maintained?

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>I never get direct answers from you, but what the hell I'll try again.

How long do you think a credible threat of force can be maintained?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Didn't I show you a link where one of the inspectors was asking for a year? I think the quote was actually saying they'd need less than a year, but I'll round up for your sake. At that time I said we could hold the threat for a year.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Didn't I show you a link where one of the inspectors was asking for a year? I think the quote was actually saying they'd need less than a year, but I'll round up for your sake. At that time I said we could hold the threat for a year.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well what the inspectors say about the time they need to disarm Iraqi (given full Iraqi cooperation) has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.

You think a credible threat of force can be maintained for an entire year? Ok. Nice talking to you.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

No. I believe we can force him to disarm without war though.</strong><hr></blockquote>


I'll take that as a yes.

Giant do you ever stop being a complete bore?

Originally posted in wrong thread.....

Here's the latest in the litany of lies and fabrications presented by the Bush Administration in its push towards war.

<a href="http://msnbc.com/news/884624.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1" target="_blank">http://msnbc.com/news/884624.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1</a>

There was even a feature on CNN (!!!!!) on this affair this morning...*still shaking head in disbelief*.

And check some real BS, courtesy of FOX, naturally:

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81047,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81047,00.html</a>
Fox and the Weekly World News, what a pair. Fox was even claiming 2 weeks back that Iraq had a remote controlled drone that could reach the USA and apread chemical weapons. Bush is relying on this type of crap to sell his war...and so many unquestioning people honestly believe it in America.

Back to administration lies: Here's part of the tally so far...part of the tip of the iceberg of:

*The aluminum tubes affair....the allegation roundly debunked by the AIEA

*Mobile chemical/bio weapons labs allegations...squashed by the inspection teams

*WMD "evidence" crowed over by Powell and Blair...debunked when an activist discovered it was a 15 year old student dissertation masquerading as "current intelligence"

*"Radio intercepts" described as "amateur hour" by those conversant with the local Arabic dialects.

*Linking Saddam with Al Qaeda....debunked by the CIA and MI6

*Photoshopped aerial pictures of alleged chemical weapons facilities.

*Allegations of gassing the Kurds....debunked...by the US' own military archives

*Allegations of an nuclear nuclear capacity; Bush was saying Iraq "months from having the bomb"...completely debunked by the IAEA

*The "best intelligence" supplied to the inspectors...slammed by the inspection teams as "garbage upon garbage upon garbage".

*no evidence of either biological or chemical weapons/manufacture, despite a 4 months of the inspection teams going "anywhere, everywhere" at any time, with no notice.

*Bush's key witness in justifying war, Saddam Hussein's deceased brother in law Kamel Hussein also stated categorically in an UNMOVIC document that Iraq's bio/chem weapons were dumped and destroyed in 1991 shortly after the Gulf War,
before the early inspections regime arrived. (Inspectors are now investigating this)

This whole WMD routine is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory. If the case is so strong, where is the evidence? People cease to believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, due to lack of evidence.
Iraq's supposed WMDs are moving into this category.
Resorting to lies, fabrications, fraud, forgery, blackmail doesn't help credibility. Whatever happened to rationality? Healthy skepticism? Anyone ever heard of Occam's Razor...the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck..etc" thing? If people are told that "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" a million times on Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and talk radio every single day for months on end, then they will believe it, evidence or not.

I detest Saddam Hussein and his vicious methods, after all, I am a liberal .but to launch a war thats going to break the bank, throw millions
more Americans out of work, destroy 401ks, encourage terrorism, flout Constitutional and International law, put our troops' lives in danger, and kill 500,000 Iraqi innocents, all for some crazy-assed empire building experiment (named Pax
Americana), hatched by ideologues like Perle, Rove and Wolfowitz, based on a heap of lies and bunk, aided and abetted by a compliant media is ... Un-American, even treasonous.

Enough already.
Support our troops and BRING THEM HOME TO THEIR LOVED ONES
If there has to be a war, there has to be a damned good reason. Where is the evidence? No more lies. No planting evidence.

Bush is pushing a faith-based, rather than a science and evidence-based justification to start a war with Iraq.

If anyone in here [i]KNOWS[/] of evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction....please share what you have heard that convinces you that Bush and Co are correct.

Here comes SJO with the view from the Pro-Saddam left. SJO if you spent half your time working against a brutal anti-Semitic dictator as you do against the US there may be a real chance of progress in the world. Instead you are so wrapped up in your anti-americanism you give a pass to a dictator that uses rape, torture, murder (you name it) to keep his hold on power. You could use some clarity in your life.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong> the Pro-Saddam left. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You allways seem to invalidate anything that comes off of your keyboard with your closed minded catch-phrases . . . I would hope that your thinking has more heft than it lets on.

[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>

I know it is tedious SJO, and I also know that you tried to be as diplomatic as possible considering how some quarters in here immediately dismiss anything they percieve as coming from a Liberal, or as being Anti-US, but it would be nice if you could dig up some links to those allegations besides just the one for the faked FBI document.

If you could, then your case of the admin having the truly Anti American position would be pretty strong

Otherwise it sounds like the conspiracy theory that you say may be a conspiracy reality

[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>

Finding holes in the arguments of politicians is not a challenge.

I'm curious why you spend so much energy doing it.

I do?

Have you read the 173 page <a href="http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/6mar.pdf" target="_blank">"Cluster"</a> report? Very enlightening.

I especially like the 100+ pages regarding questions Iraq has not answered. But keep bashing politicians, that's a much more productive way to foster honest debate.

[quote]Here comes SJO with the view from the Pro-Saddam left. SJO if you spent half your time working against a brutal anti-Semitic dictator as you do against the US there may be a real chance of progress in the world. Instead you are so wrapped up in your anti-americanism you give a pass to a dictator that uses rape, torture, murder (you name it) to keep his hold on power. You could use some clarity in your life.<hr></blockquote>

Pro-Saddam left! Here we go again....*yawn mode*
Scott, wasn't it Reagan and Bush Sr. who supported Saddam Hussein from 1980 to 1990, by exporting chemical and biological weapons as well as turning a blind eye to the horrific stuff going on there? Left wingers, huh?

Scott, it is far better for America to be open to criticism, from within and without, rather than sticking our collective head's in the sand and pretending that all the actions of our elected (cough) representatives are in America's best interests. It seems that *you* are more comfortable with closed government, and a "shut-your-mouth-and put-up-with-it philospophy...remember Ari *Weasel* Fleischer saying..."Americans had better watch out what they are saying"...and Bush's "you are either with us or against us".

Dissent is as American as apple pie. This country came about because of protest and dissent, eventually liberating us from a tyrant named George.

Scott, *you* sound like the one who is Anti- America.

[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>

By Scott,

" You could use some clarity in your life. "

This coming from you is hysterical.

You're in your dream world again aren't you?

Tell me, how many fingers am I holding up? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

I'm also curious, giant, how your mental process brings you to say that I take everything the administration says as gospel after I say that proving politicians to be liars isn't hard.

Please outline your mental process for me, I'd love to see it.

When SJO and others make excuses for and even deny the horrible record that Saddam has accumulated over the years it servers to reform his image. Thus "Pro-Saddam". It's similar to the holocaust denial.

No one else is shocked at how mute the "anti-war" left is wrt Saddam and his record. Those that trumpet the UN's ability to block "serious consequences" don't seem to be bothered that Iraq has complies with none of the resolutions.

Most are anti-US and don't care about Iraq at all. In the end it supports Saddam in a passive way. But when you add the mix of denial of Saddam's record it tips the scales to actively working to keep him in power. Thus, again, "Pro-Saddam"

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

You think a credible threat of force can be maintained for an entire year? Ok. Nice talking to you. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes. A 'credible threat' of only a few weeks isn't a 'credible threat', it's an attack. You're blind to think otherwise.

I hope no one was diluted enough to think that 1441 was going to work? We all "know" that Saddam would never give up the ghost. The only issue was if the US/UK was going to do it for real this time.

It would seem that the "yes" vote from France on 1441 would tell us that France thought this would go the same way the others would. Saddam would slip away again and nothing would happen. Now that the US/UK are ready for "serious consequences", out of no where France pretends to be the peace maker. With France's help Saddam may slip away again.

If we are to believe that France is the master of diplomacy you have to consider they'd knew that this would be the result. It almost seems as if they haven't thought this thing through. Or rather they feel that keeping Saddam in power aint all that bad anyway. They confuse me.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>
If we are to believe that France is the master of diplomacy you have to consider they'd knew that this would be the result. It almost seems as if they haven't thought this thing through. Or rather they feel that keeping Saddam in power aint all that bad anyway. They confuse me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I just think that there are some leaders more experience in war and fighting than Bush. They're less willing to use it as a political tool. Obviously since France supported the first attack on Iraq, they're not against using force in Iraq. Their 'high water mark' is just higher than that of Bush.

As much as I don't like him, I don't mean that as a knock on Bush.

Here's an interesting article: Cheney, Wolfowitz et. al. were planning an attack on Iraq as early as 1997, and a definite move in this direction would require a "catastophic Pearl Harbor-like event".
If no "catastrophic event" unfolded, then the plan to unseat Saddam would "come slowly".

<a href="http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html" target="_blank">http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html</a>

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

I just think that there are some leaders more experience in war and fighting than Bush. They're less willing to use it as a political tool. Obviously since France supported the first attack on Iraq, they're not against using force in Iraq. Their 'high water mark' is just higher than that of Bush.

As much as I don't like him, I don't mean that as a knock on Bush.</strong><hr></blockquote>

As far as I can tell France does not have a high water mark. Right now they refuse to even consider any compromise at all. Their only position is "no war". It's clear that Iraq has not complied with the UN resolutions and France's response is to do nothing. BTW I consider more inspectors "nothing".

[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>

As far as I can tell France does not have a high water mark. Right now they refuse to even consider any compromise at all. Their only position is "no war". It's clear that Iraq has not complied with the UN resolutions and France's response is to do nothing. BTW I consider more inspectors "nothing". </strong><hr></blockquote>

"No war right now" doesn't mean "no war ever" or "no compromise".

As for the more inspectors means nothing, that's pretty much not true. They're doing just fine and progressing. They will come to the right conclusion, whether it's war or no war.

I truly don't believe that France would ever go for a war without something very different happening. Status quo is what they will settle for or better yet for them lifting sanctions so France can cash in.

The inspectors are looking for a needle in a haystack with wheels. They are failing and they know it. They just don't want to admit it.

If things are progressing nicely, why did UNMOVIC release 100+ pages of unanswered questions on March 6th, bunge?

[quote]"No war right now" doesn't mean "no war ever" or "no compromise".<hr></blockquote>

To all appearances, that's exactly what it means. Unless, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,911866,00.html" target="_blank">"whatever the circumstances France will vote no,"</a> is actually an obscure French idiom that really means "Maybe".

But since Chirac followed that up with "France will vote 'no' because she considers tonight that there is no reason to wage a war to reach the goal we set ourselves, that is the disarmament of Iraq," I think we can take him at face value.

I'm glad you acknowledge that the only compromising in the UNSC thus far has been by the US. But "no war ever" and "no compromise" seems to be explicitly the stance of the French government.

I think it's clear which UN party is least open to compromise.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>When SJO and others make excuses for and even deny the horrible record that Saddam has accumulated over the years...</strong><hr></blockquote>

People can differ over the details of what Saddam has and what he has done without being "Pro-Saddam".

[quote]<strong>...it servers to reform his image. Thus "Pro-Saddam". It's similar to the holocaust denial.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So, if I say "I think he's got some anthrax, but don't think he's got much of a nuke program" (hypothetical -- I have no strong opinion either way) I'm boosting his image?

I can just see the slogan: "Vote Saddam! He's only done some of those horrible things you think!"

[quote]<strong>No one else is shocked at how mute the "anti-war" left is wrt Saddam and his record.</strong><hr></blockquote>

We've already gone over this, and your weak response was to pretend I'd missed one of your posts and duck the issue.

[quote]<strong>NThose that trumpet the UN's ability to block "serious consequences" don't seem to be bothered that Iraq has complies with none of the resolutions.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I see. "Don't seem to be bothered" is the only possible state of mind someone can be in if they don't sign on for an immediate military action as the best response? Ah, such keen insight you have into human nature, just a glorious breadth of possibilities your eyes can see.

[quote]<strong>Most are anti-US and don't care about Iraq at all. In the end it supports Saddam in a passive way. But when you add the mix of denial of Saddam's record it tips the scales to actively working to keep him in power. Thus, again, "Pro-Saddam"</strong><hr></blockquote>

Let's see how this works: One doesn't have to have a poster of Saddam hanging in one's den, or a membership in the Saddam Hussein Fan club, to be "Pro-Saddam". All that's necessary is that someone else, you for example, decides that one's opinions or actions might directly or indirectly help Saddam. If the end result is helping Saddam, motivations don't matter.

Okay, let's now turn this around: You're all for this war. In war, innocent people die. Children die. Oh, you may call that "regrettable" and the like, but for now, let's just disregard that, just like you prefer to conveniently disregard the better motivations of anyone who disagrees with you.

End results are what matter. You want war. War kills innocent people, including children. Hence forth, it's utterly fair to refer to you as "Pro Baby-Killing". What does it matter what Scott says? He just wants to kill babies.

[Editorial note: the above is a parody meant to reflect an unfair rhetorical technique, and not intended as an inflammatory accusation. No need to call out the dogs!]

[quote]Originally posted by shetline:
<strong>We've already gone over this, and your weak response was to pretend I'd missed one of your posts and duck the issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't even remember that. Maybe I got bored with the Pro-Saddam rhetoric and didn't post back. Or maybe I had something much better to do which happens from time to time.


[quote]Originally posted by shetline:
<strong>
Okay, let's now turn this around: You're all for this war. In war, innocent people die. Children die. Oh, you may call that "regrettable" and the like, but for now, let's just disregard that, just like you prefer to conveniently disregard the better motivations of anyone who disagrees with you.

End results are what matter. You want war. War kills innocent people, including children. Hence forth, it's utterly fair to refer to you as "Pro Baby-Killing". What does it matter what Scott says? He just wants to kill babies.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Saddam kills babies right now, Fluffy puppies too. Therefor anyone that acts to stop the liberation of Iraq is a fluffy puppy killer!


[quote]Originally posted by shetline:
<strong>[Editorial note: the above is a parody meant to reflect an unfair rhetorical technique, and not intended as an inflammatory accusation. No need to call out the dogs!]</strong><hr></blockquote>


Great. You take your shot then call off the dogs. Convenient for you huh?

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>

" I don't even remember that. Maybe I got bored with the Pro-Saddam rhetoric and didn't post back. Or maybe I had something much better to do which happens from time to time.

Great. You take your shot then call off the dogs. Convenient for you huh? "</strong><hr></blockquote>

For a supposedly educated person you sure seem to fall back on this " Pro Saddam rhetoric " all the time ( well that and blaming france for everything ). I don't remember anyone supporting Saddam in any of these discussions. It's the lack of support for Mr. Bush that you have to contend with. Do you think you've got it now?

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>If things are progressing nicely, why did UNMOVIC release 100+ pages of unanswered questions on March 6th, bunge?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Because it's shorter than the 1000+ pages they would have had to release six months ago?

Obviously I just pulled that number out of, um, thin air.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>I truly don't believe that France would ever go for a war without something very different happening. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well I definitely agree that their standards are very different than our own, but I don't think it would take another 9/11-like attack to convince them. That's something only time could play out though.

[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>
"France will vote 'no' because she considers tonight that there is no reason to wage a war to reach the goal we set ourselves, that is the disarmament of Iraq..." </strong><hr></blockquote>

This is the crux of the issue. Since it's the truth to some of us, there is no reason to wage war. I don't really hear any arguments that refute it. I do hear calls for an attack because Iraq has failed to fully comply with Resolution 1441 (something I think is obviously true), but if we're going to get the results even without war, then why not do it without war? That's a big IF for the time being, but not an impossibility.

If the goal is disarmament, I think at the very least we have time to find out if we can successfully disarm Iraq without war. My personal belief is that there's a good chance it can happen. Maybe not 50/50, but significant.

If the goal is regime change, then war is basically the only answer unless Saddam steps down.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>I don't really hear any arguments that refute it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

12 years of history show very very clearly that Hussein will not ever fully cooperate and that without full cooperation we cannot fully disarm Iraq. But I guess that's not compelling enough for some.

[quote]<strong>If the goal is disarmament, I think at the very least we have time to find out if we can successfully disarm Iraq without war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Would there ever be a point that you decide that we can't?

Your logic is circular and ignorant of history.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
12 years of history show very very clearly that Hussein will not ever fully cooperate and that without full cooperation we cannot fully disarm Iraq. </strong><hr></blockquote>

12 years of history DO show that Hussein will not ever fully cooperate. That does not show though that we can't fully disarm Iraq without his full cooperation. That's a leap in logic that I think requires a more accurate and detailed explanation.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
Would there ever be a point that you decide that we can't [successfully disarm Iraq without war]? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, and it wouldn't take another 9/11. Let the inspectors do their job. Get your monthly reports, mentally chart the progression and make an informed decision on a monthly basis. So far all I see is evidence that the inspections are getting better results as time goes on (and I believe that scares Bush because his window of opportunity is shrinking). If the trends continue we won't need war.

If there were a downward trend, war would be inevitable.

Am I the only one who believes that the inspections have gradually been getting better results? It might be doublespeak from Blix, or just media bias, but that's my impression.

[quote]<strong>12 years of history DO show that Hussein will not ever fully cooperate. That does not show though that we can't fully disarm Iraq without his full cooperation. That's a leap in logic that I think requires a more accurate and detailed explanation.</strong><hr></blockquote>

There are 100+ pages of explanation in the UNMOVIC "cluster" document (<a href="http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/6mar.pdf" target="_blank">link</a>). If you'd bother to read it or at least page 21 (a table of concents of unanswered questions) you'd see that there are many questions that require Iraq's active cooperation to answer. I know this strays dangerously far from speaking in generalities and therefore weakens your argument, but there are dozens of things that Iraq has to prove to inspectors.

Even with the threat of imminent war, Iraq has only destroyed a few missiles. THAT'S IT. What could lead you to believe that Hussein would ever answer these questions when there couldn't possibly be a greater threat of force?

[quote]<strong>If there were a downward trend, war would be inevitable.</strong><hr></blockquote>

We've had 12 years of downward trends.

[quote]<strong>Am I the only one who believes that the inspections have gradually been getting better results? It might be doublespeak from Blix, or just media bias, but that's my impression.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think you get that impression because you seem to have no clue what's actually going on. I think the fact that you point to "the media" speaks volumes.

READ BLIX'S ACTUAL REPORTS. I swear to God you won't feel any physical pain if you make an effort to be informed.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

I think you get that impression because you seem to have no clue what's actually going on. I think the fact that you point to "the media" speaks volumes.

READ BLIX'S ACTUAL REPORTS. I swear to God you won't feel any physical pain if you make an effort to be informed.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wow, you just won't quit. You can STILL attack me personally and I STILL don't care. If that's all you care to do, why are you pretending to discuss the thread topic? Just PM me instead. I'll actually read the insults even if they're in a PM. It'll give me a good laugh.

"...but there are dozens of things that Iraq has to prove to inspectors."

Iraq doesn't have to prove anything to be disarmed. Read that again: In order for Iraq to be disarmed, they wouldn't have to prove anything. Yes, that's right.

If we go to war, are they suddenly going to prove something that will disarm them? No, that doesn't make any sense. If we go to war obvioulsy we'll just disarm them without any say from them. My point since you need things spelled out for you like a child, is that to disarm Iraq we don't need their cooperation.

So, we can disarm them without their help. Yes, that includes them 'proving' anything. Would that be helpful? Sure. Page 21 is beautiful. I'm going to frame it. I still don't care about it, but maybe that'll make you happy. But it's not relevant.

I believe that disarmament can be accomplished with or without war, with or without Saddam's 100% disclosure. Your claim that Iraq has to prove something is bunk. Sure, that's what Resolution 1441 says. Sure, it'd make Blix's job really quick.

Is it harder becuase they're not being 100% helpful? Yes. Can it still be done? Yes.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Iraq doesn't have to prove anything to be disarmed. Read that again: In order for Iraq to be disarmed, they wouldn't have to prove anything. Yes, that's right.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The UN disagrees with you. Iraq must answer many questions. They must prove that they have destroyed a lot of chemical and biological weapons they have not proven they destroyed (as they said they have). Iraq must prove this, it's in the resolutions, it's in the reports. All it takes is a basic read-through of the relevant documents to understand this.

It's not a personal attack to say you are ignorant of the basic facts, bunge, it's a statement of fact.

[quote]<strong>If we go to war, are they suddenly going to prove something that will disarm them?</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, but it won't matter at that point because the man who creates these problems will be gone.

Without intervention Iraq must prove they have destroyed the chemical and biological weapons they say they have destroyed. This isn't according to me, this is according to Blix.

[quote]<strong>No, that doesn't make any sense. If we go to war obvioulsy we'll just disarm them without any say from them. My point since you need things spelled out for you like a child, is that to disarm Iraq we don't need their cooperation.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But for the UN to be satisfied that they have disarmed they have to prove they have destroyed certain things. Again, the inspectors are there to inspect, not to search for things in the desert. Read Resolution 687. I know you won't, but I've got to at least try to get you to be informed.

You can't wish it away, because it's there in all the documents. From 687 to 1284 to 1441 and everywhere inbetween, Iraq's full compliance and cooperation is necessary.

[quote]<strong>I'm going to frame it. I still don't care about it, but maybe that'll make you happy. But it's not relevant.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This, to me, is very telling. It is telling to me that you don't care about the actual disarmament issues when discussing Iraqi disarmament.

[quote]<strong>I believe that disarmament can be accomplished with or without war, with or without Saddam's 100% disclosure.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You know better than international intelligence agencies, the UN Security Council and UNMOVIC.

[quote]<strong>Sure, that's what Resolution 1441 says. Sure, it'd make Blix's job really quick.</strong><hr></blockquote>

1441 says it. Blix says it. UNMOVIC says it. All resolutions relevant to disarmament say it.

[quote]<strong>Can it still be done? Yes.</strong><hr></blockquote>

According to you. Pardon me if I find the UN and UNMOVIC more credible than you.