[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.
<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!]
<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?
" 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?
<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.
"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.
<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?
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.
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.
<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.
But for the UN to be satisfied that they have disarmed they have to prove they have destroyed certain things. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you really believe that? No, and neither do I. You're missing the point entirely.
Everyone here knows the documents say that Iraq has to have full disclosure. We've been discussing this for months. You can pretend I don't know this, why, so you can avoid discussing anything? I guess so.
You can say I'm ignorant of the fact that the U.N. requires Iraq to prove X,Y, & Z. I'm not. I'm just being realistic. I'm not arguing semantics, like yourself. I'm discussing what can really happen, what can really be expected, not what can be written down on paper.
So, lay off the semantics, and use your brain instead. Isolate yourself from your bias and think about the situation. You're discussing this like a computer. 'But the paper says "Z, Y, X"!' If you can't see past that, if you can't think for yourself, then your input is of no value here.
Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.
Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.
Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.
You're not some prophet with insight no one else can see. The U.N. has asked Iraq to prove things. No one expects them too. We'll get them to talk as much as possible and root out the rest. The U.N. has no intention of going to war if Iraq doesn't disclose 100% and they shouldn't.
You keep up with this charade asking for proof because you know it's impossible for Iraq to do. And being impossible you want it to be a trigger for war. Again, you're bias is that you have an agenda that's not the same as the U.N. You're looking for a reason to go to war while the U.N. is looking to disarm Iraq.
These are two distinctly differet agendas. So now you keep harping on 'proof of destruction'.
Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.
Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.
Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.
That's just the way it is. Everyone knew it before Resolution 1441. Everyone knew it as they wrote Resolution 1441. No one but the U.S. (and perhaps Britain) believes that this lack of proof from Saddam is a reason to go to war.
No one but the U.S. (and perhaps Britain) believes that this lack of proof from Saddam is a reason to go to war.
Sorry. So you can go back to whining about a lack of proof, and I'll just say 'who cares?'
Disarmament is the goal. It can be achieved without war. You haven't tried, simply because you can't, to show a shred of evidence that demonstrates that it's impossible to disarm Iraq without war.
That's just the way it is. Everyone knew it before Resolution 1441. Everyone knew it as they wrote Resolution 1441. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
To use a commonly mistated NRA slogan "Guns don't kill people, People kill people". It isn't the weapons that are important or has everyone forgotten that two commercial planes took down the WTC and not WMD.
1441 was written knowing the solution was the removal of Saddam and not the removal of his weapons. Because lots of countries have WMD, it is what he will do with them that drives the war hysteria.
Hey, if US citizens can own full auto weapons, I think it's only far to let Saddam have a Few nukes. NOT
<strong>Do you really believe that? No, and neither do I. You're missing the point entirely.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the point is that the UN is wrong and you know what's going on. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>I'm just being realistic. I'm not arguing semantics, like yourself. I'm discussing what can really happen, what can really be expected, not what can be written down on paper.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you think Iraq can be fully disarmed without certain things being proven you're a fool. Even Iraq understands this, why do you think they sent letters on chemical weapons to Blix today?
[quote]<strong>Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then what's the point of dealing with them?
[quote]<strong>The U.N. has asked Iraq to prove things. No one expects them too. We'll get them to talk as much as possible and root out the rest. The U.N. has no intention of going to war if Iraq doesn't disclose 100% and they shouldn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you know what "the rest" is without full disclosure? How do you search for something that you don't even know whether or not it exists?
[quote]<strong>You keep up with this charade asking for proof because you know it's impossible for Iraq to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
UNMOVIC doesn't seem to think it's impossible. Blix says in his reports that it's possible for Iraq to satisfy him that the weapons were, in fact, destroyed.
You have no backing for your arguments.
[quote]<strong>Disarmament is the goal. It can be achieved without war. You haven't tried, simply because you can't, to show a shred of evidence that demonstrates that it's impossible to disarm Iraq without war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
12 years of history tell me that disarming Iraq is not possible without force. If you want to ignore history that's your business. It's the easiest way to remain willfully ignorant.
12 years of history tell me that disarming Iraq is not possible without force. If you want to ignore history that's your business. It's the easiest way to remain willfully ignorant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See, but you're blind enough, ignorant enough, or just simple enough to pretend that the previous years of sanctions and inspections are the same as they are now.
That's just not true.
Oh, and a snide <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> to you too.
Comments
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.
<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!]
<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.
[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?
<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?
<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.
<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.
<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.
<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.
<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.
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.
<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.
<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.
<strong>
But for the UN to be satisfied that they have disarmed they have to prove they have destroyed certain things. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you really believe that? No, and neither do I. You're missing the point entirely.
Everyone here knows the documents say that Iraq has to have full disclosure. We've been discussing this for months. You can pretend I don't know this, why, so you can avoid discussing anything? I guess so.
You can say I'm ignorant of the fact that the U.N. requires Iraq to prove X,Y, & Z. I'm not. I'm just being realistic. I'm not arguing semantics, like yourself. I'm discussing what can really happen, what can really be expected, not what can be written down on paper.
So, lay off the semantics, and use your brain instead. Isolate yourself from your bias and think about the situation. You're discussing this like a computer. 'But the paper says "Z, Y, X"!' If you can't see past that, if you can't think for yourself, then your input is of no value here.
Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.
Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.
Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.
You're not some prophet with insight no one else can see. The U.N. has asked Iraq to prove things. No one expects them too. We'll get them to talk as much as possible and root out the rest. The U.N. has no intention of going to war if Iraq doesn't disclose 100% and they shouldn't.
You keep up with this charade asking for proof because you know it's impossible for Iraq to do. And being impossible you want it to be a trigger for war. Again, you're bias is that you have an agenda that's not the same as the U.N. You're looking for a reason to go to war while the U.N. is looking to disarm Iraq.
These are two distinctly differet agendas. So now you keep harping on 'proof of destruction'.
Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.
Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.
Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.
That's just the way it is. Everyone knew it before Resolution 1441. Everyone knew it as they wrote Resolution 1441. No one but the U.S. (and perhaps Britain) believes that this lack of proof from Saddam is a reason to go to war.
No one but the U.S. (and perhaps Britain) believes that this lack of proof from Saddam is a reason to go to war.
Sorry. So you can go back to whining about a lack of proof, and I'll just say 'who cares?'
Disarmament is the goal. It can be achieved without war. You haven't tried, simply because you can't, to show a shred of evidence that demonstrates that it's impossible to disarm Iraq without war.
<strong>...
That's just the way it is. Everyone knew it before Resolution 1441. Everyone knew it as they wrote Resolution 1441. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
To use a commonly mistated NRA slogan "Guns don't kill people, People kill people". It isn't the weapons that are important or has everyone forgotten that two commercial planes took down the WTC and not WMD.
1441 was written knowing the solution was the removal of Saddam and not the removal of his weapons. Because lots of countries have WMD, it is what he will do with them that drives the war hysteria.
Hey, if US citizens can own full auto weapons, I think it's only far to let Saddam have a Few nukes. NOT
<strong>...
Hey, if US citizens can own full auto weapons, I think it's only far to let Saddam have a Few nukes. NOT
Well they can't so ... start the war!
<strong>
Well they can't so ... start the war!
I should have used "Have" and not "Own".
<strong>Do you really believe that? No, and neither do I. You're missing the point entirely.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the point is that the UN is wrong and you know what's going on. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>I'm just being realistic. I'm not arguing semantics, like yourself. I'm discussing what can really happen, what can really be expected, not what can be written down on paper.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you think Iraq can be fully disarmed without certain things being proven you're a fool. Even Iraq understands this, why do you think they sent letters on chemical weapons to Blix today?
[quote]<strong>Everyone here knows that Iraq isn't ever going to point to his stash of weapons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then what's the point of dealing with them?
[quote]<strong>The U.N. has asked Iraq to prove things. No one expects them too. We'll get them to talk as much as possible and root out the rest. The U.N. has no intention of going to war if Iraq doesn't disclose 100% and they shouldn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you know what "the rest" is without full disclosure? How do you search for something that you don't even know whether or not it exists?
[quote]<strong>You keep up with this charade asking for proof because you know it's impossible for Iraq to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
UNMOVIC doesn't seem to think it's impossible. Blix says in his reports that it's possible for Iraq to satisfy him that the weapons were, in fact, destroyed.
You have no backing for your arguments.
[quote]<strong>Disarmament is the goal. It can be achieved without war. You haven't tried, simply because you can't, to show a shred of evidence that demonstrates that it's impossible to disarm Iraq without war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
12 years of history tell me that disarming Iraq is not possible without force. If you want to ignore history that's your business. It's the easiest way to remain willfully ignorant.
<strong>
12 years of history tell me that disarming Iraq is not possible without force. If you want to ignore history that's your business. It's the easiest way to remain willfully ignorant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See, but you're blind enough, ignorant enough, or just simple enough to pretend that the previous years of sanctions and inspections are the same as they are now.
That's just not true.
Oh, and a snide <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> to you too.