Do the math. I looked at the "cluster document" and there are not "hundreds of tons" unaccounted for. Don't exaggerate.
Take a look at page 67 & 68. I was being conservative. You obviously didn't look very hard.
- 219 tons of Tabun produced. 70 tons allegedly destroyed (30 unilateral & unverified, 40 in front of inspectors).
- They destroyed MORE POCI than they declared they had.
- 191 tons of NaCN and 140 tons of DMA-HCI "that could still be viable today"
So that's hundreds of tons just from two pages in the 173 page document.
Sorry tonton, your ignorant lies continue to stink.
And it doesn't matter. If there were 1000 tons unaccounted for that didn't actually exist, they are not a threat. They are a suspected threat. Until you can prove that they exist, you cannot prove that they are a threat.
The unknown can be and is usually the biggest threat. You have to see something to be scared of it?
A "suspected threat"?
Until proven guilty in a court a law by a jury of its chemical peers?
Jesus.... quit while you're way behind.
There have been no inspections in NK so we have no indication of what they do and do not have except Kim's word. Kim has overtly stated that he will nuke the USA if there is a war. That's a proven threat.
How can it be a threat if we don't know what they have? It's a "suspected threat" right?
Groverat, you'd be advised not to argue a point that supports your opponent. Comparing Iraq and NK only makes Saddam look even less of a comparative threat, and therefore Bush even more hypocritical.
It's a possibility, but you can't go to war on a possibility.
Well since my goal isn't to defend Bush or make him look groovy I don't give a rat's ass.
The hypocrisy of those saying "NK is the REAL threat!" is laughable.
There is just as much evidence (if not more) that NK doesn't have any ability to hit us with a nuke as there is evidence he can. It's all in what you want to see I guess.
Did you know that the last time Iraq was proven to have produced WMD was 1991?
Yes, I did. I read the Cluster document before the war even started.
That the last time stored weapons were destroyed was 1997?
I might have missed something, but that's what it looked like according to that document. And that says to me that war was incredibly irresponsible. I'm going to read the document fully and see if I was wrong on those points. Feel free to correct me. But tell me. Did you read it?
Yes. I don't see how the above two points dispute anything I say?
Did I say Iraq was still producing the weapons? Of course not.
I don't get your point. Bush lied. We all know it. In fact, he should in fact have said that since he didn't "know what they have truly destroyed and they will not divulge [he] consider[s] them a threat." That would have been honest.
Harder to sell the war that way, so he lied instead and said Iraq had the stuff.
This is a cop-out. I don't think Giant hates Bush any more than I do. We hate his actions. We hate his dishonesty. We hate his ignorance. When he does something that's not harmful or dishonest or ignorant, we won't hesitate to give him credit.
So what did Iraq have in 1998 that justified a unilateral 33,000 troop attack?
Let's see how much you really hate dishonesty. You must be filled with self-loathing.
You have heard of the concept of Due Process, no? I know legally it isn't binding to non-Americans and foreign bodies, but in the spirit of all things American it should be.
No, it shouldn't be. How foolish.
And past that, if you want to look at it that way Iraq was convicted over a decade ago and has been violating its parole agreements (dozen resolutions) ever since.
Bush ignored due process in his attack on Iraq, even though the UN pressed for it. Not to mention that we broke the rules of the UN charter, according to the UN (and they have the sole right to judge whether we did or not). And we are bound to that signed charter by the constitution. So our action did indeed break the law.
Quote the law we broke and then explain to me how that law trumps the supreme power of the US federal government in the Constitution which gives Congress and the Prez war-making powers. Please.
If they have no weapons than they are disarmed. Period.
They are disarmed when the UN-SC says they are disarmed. Period.
Did you not remember these lovely humanitarian anti-war nations resisting the ending of sanctions
because they said Iraq needed further inspections and disarmament?
Selective memory and lies abound.
I ask again. Did you actually look at the cluster document? Where did the UN documents say Saddam had WMD? Nowhere, that's where.
I'm not sure it said that I never said it did.
That's not the way it works. It was Bush's war to justify.
Sure it's the way it works. Obviously that's the way it works. Look at the world.
Hussein has outstanding WMD issues.
Bush says "I consider you a threat, Saddam, resolve them or I will shoot you with the big gun!" and calls for new resolutions and inspections.
Iraq's big declaration answers damn near ZERO questions.
The inspections process produces very few results in answering the question.
Bush says "Do it or I will shoot you with the big gun I discussed earlier."
Saddam does not.
Bush shoots him with the big gun.
What is the law here? Is there anything tangible WRT legal recourse against the US?