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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
When things here get worse because of the war and people start thinking it's a bad idea.
An expensive ( in more ways than one ) boondoggle.
These guys won't be saying much. Ether that or they'll still be blaming Clinton for everything.
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How is it not true?
Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. - Hans Blix (Report to the UN Security Council 2/14/03)
But you know better than Blix and the UN. You are very smart.
How is it not true?...But you know better than Blix and the UN. You are very smart.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm speaking realistically. The inspectors have also admitted to 'lying' about how much they know with the hope that it would spur Saddam into admitting more because he'd fear they knew about something that they actually didn't.
It IS a cat and mouse game. Quote as much doublespeak as you want, it doesn't change the truth. You would have to be very naive or simple minded to think otherwise. Like Bush.
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The fact that you discuss US policy and this war in terms of Iraqi WMD.
[speaks in an Oliver North tone over a really, really bad digital communication link]
Ironically, this AO topic will probably last longer than it will take for the US to overrun Iraq. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>How can we know that Iraq has fully disarmed when they can't prove that they destroyed weapons we knew they had?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You probably don't know it, but that's a trick question. Saddam can't prove that he's destroyed weapons we knew he had. That doesn't mean we can go to war.
You probably don't know it, but that's a trick question. Saddam can't prove that he's destroyed weapons we knew he had. That doesn't mean we can go to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Russians, err, Soviets never had trouble with that. But then, following treaty protocol, they (like us) would destroy their weapons in the open, videotape the event, and invite observers from either the US military or a international mediator to confirm with their own eyes. You can't deny a Yankee missle sub is out of commission if you watched the Sovs pour concrete into all the missle tubes. Similarly, the South Africans (and numerous others) had little trouble proving they had destroyed their nuclear program materials. Saddam, however, did it in secret, without telling anyone at the time, and with no record of any kind except his own assertions. Or maybe, just maybe, he didn't actually do it at all?
Or (most likely) that will make the war very very quick (as if it wasn't going to be already).
[quote]<strong>Saddam can't prove that he's destroyed weapons we knew he had.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But it can be proven by inspectors somehow?
Really, bunge, you're tripping over your own web of foolish logic.
As far as saying Iraq can't prove it, you're once again saying you know more than the UN & UNMOVIC. For what they can do to prove they destroyed the VX, look at pages 83 & 84 of the "Cluster" document I posted about earlier. You'll notice at the end of every weapon description there's a section entitled: "Actions that Iraq could take to help resolve the issue"
Blix is doing everything he can to avoid war, it's a shame Iraq won't help him.
Really, bunge, you're tripping over your own web of foolish logic. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you're just happy to settle on semantic games instead of an intelligent conversation.
If he CAN, then I'm right. There is a way to disarm him without going to war and your hawkish war-lust is all the more disgusting since you know the war can be avoided.
[quote]Resolution 687: "Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities." <hr></blockquote>
Sure he CAN but he WON'T.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK. He can. The hawks (no offense intended Mr. Spiff) are now getting their signals crossed.
The question isn't if he can or can't disarm without war, because we all know he can even if some here refuse to admit it. The real question is will he do it or not.
Inch by inch over these past few months he has been doing what we need him to in order for us to disarm him peacefully, or at least without war. We're getting more and more access to the country, he actually destroyed some missles (!!), and we are going to be able to root this stuff out.
So will he do it or not? Not if we just ask him to do it, even if we ask really nicely. But we're putting a clamp around the country and the dam will ultimately burst without a war.
That's why Bush is in such a frenzy, because the need for war is evaporating. But evidently Bush's global plans (whatever they are) still need war in Iraq. So he's got to get his battle in now before the rest of the world can really see that there is no need for war.
[quote]<strong>Inch by inch over these past few months he has been doing what we need him to in order for us to disarm him peacefully, or at least without war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because war is worse than the slaughter by sanctions? I like that blind, head-in-the-sand logic. Killing hundreds of thousands MORE Iraqis by sanctions over an indefinite period of time in an inconclusive process that has little hope of really working is better than a quick military action that will replace the asshole who causes all this in the first place and remove all doubts and impediments for a positive future for the people of Iraq. That's some thinking!
[quote]<strong>We're getting more and more access to the country, he actually destroyed some missles (!!), and we are going to be able to root this stuff out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you "root out" chemical weapons? If you figure it out you might want to inform Blix and Co., they've had a hell of a time finding it for the last 12 years.
Needless to say:
Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it.
Of course, Blix is just a war-mongering liar.
[quote]<strong>So will he do it or not? Not if we just ask him to do it, even if we ask really nicely. But we're putting a clamp around the country and the dam will ultimately burst without a war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So we punish the people until *they* do our job for us? Fantastic!
"I will beat you until you overthrow the master that beats you!"
[quote]<strong>That's why Bush is in such a frenzy, because the need for war is evaporating. But evidently Bush's global plans (whatever they are) still need war in Iraq. So he's got to get his battle in now before the rest of the world can really see that there is no need for war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"global plans" for world domination, no doubt!
Just ignore the fact that he has, AT MOST, 5 more years in office.
"If he CAN, then I'm right. There is a way to disarm him without going to war and your hawkish war-lust is all the more disgusting since you know the war can be avoided."
And what is that way, bunge? If you honestly think that 100, 200, or 1500 inspectors (see the other thread) can disarm someone without cooperation, then you are truly not based in reality. It is totally impossible. We have tried every other option. Again, bunge, I ask you: How will the inspectors find everything without Saddam's cooperation?
Enough with the vague statements about how we can avoid war...tell us HOW. He will continue to deceive, and as long as he does that the inspections will fail. Oh sure, they might LOOK like their working...but he'll still have his weapons.
I say again:
Inspections have failed
Sanctions have failed
Limited military action has failed
Resolutions have failed
If you argue force is a last resort, then we are there.
Comments
<strong>
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.
When things here get worse because of the war and people start thinking it's a bad idea.
An expensive ( in more ways than one ) boondoggle.
These guys won't be saying much. Ether that or they'll still be blaming Clinton for everything.
[ 03-15-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How is it not true?
Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. - Hans Blix (Report to the UN Security Council 2/14/03)
But you know better than Blix and the UN. You are very smart.
<strong>
How is it not true?...But you know better than Blix and the UN. You are very smart.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm speaking realistically. The inspectors have also admitted to 'lying' about how much they know with the hope that it would spur Saddam into admitting more because he'd fear they knew about something that they actually didn't.
It IS a cat and mouse game. Quote as much doublespeak as you want, it doesn't change the truth. You would have to be very naive or simple minded to think otherwise. Like Bush.
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The fact that you discuss US policy and this war in terms of Iraqi WMD.
[ 03-15-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Ironically, this AO topic will probably last longer than it will take for the US to overrun Iraq.
<strong>How can we know that Iraq has fully disarmed when they can't prove that they destroyed weapons we knew they had?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You probably don't know it, but that's a trick question. Saddam can't prove that he's destroyed weapons we knew he had. That doesn't mean we can go to war.
<strong>
You probably don't know it, but that's a trick question. Saddam can't prove that he's destroyed weapons we knew he had. That doesn't mean we can go to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Russians, err, Soviets never had trouble with that. But then, following treaty protocol, they (like us) would destroy their weapons in the open, videotape the event, and invite observers from either the US military or a international mediator to confirm with their own eyes. You can't deny a Yankee missle sub is out of commission if you watched the Sovs pour concrete into all the missle tubes. Similarly, the South Africans (and numerous others) had little trouble proving they had destroyed their nuclear program materials. Saddam, however, did it in secret, without telling anyone at the time, and with no record of any kind except his own assertions. Or maybe, just maybe, he didn't actually do it at all?
<strong>
Or maybe, just maybe, he didn't actually do it at all?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why don't we send inspectors in to find out?
[quote]<strong>Saddam can't prove that he's destroyed weapons we knew he had.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But it can be proven by inspectors somehow?
Really, bunge, you're tripping over your own web of foolish logic.
As far as saying Iraq can't prove it, you're once again saying you know more than the UN & UNMOVIC. For what they can do to prove they destroyed the VX, look at pages 83 & 84 of the "Cluster" document I posted about earlier. You'll notice at the end of every weapon description there's a section entitled: "Actions that Iraq could take to help resolve the issue"
Blix is doing everything he can to avoid war, it's a shame Iraq won't help him.
<strong>
Really, bunge, you're tripping over your own web of foolish logic. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you're just happy to settle on semantic games instead of an intelligent conversation.
If he CAN, then I'm right. There is a way to disarm him without going to war and your hawkish war-lust is all the more disgusting since you know the war can be avoided.
<strong>
If he CAN...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure he CAN but he WON'T.
Amazing!
He can prove he has disarmed. He has had that ability for 12 years. This is not new.
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2847929.stm"; target="_blank">Legal experts scour old resolutions</a>
[quote]Resolution 687: "Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities." <hr></blockquote>
<strong>
Sure he CAN but he WON'T.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK. He can. The hawks (no offense intended Mr. Spiff) are now getting their signals crossed.
The question isn't if he can or can't disarm without war, because we all know he can even if some here refuse to admit it. The real question is will he do it or not.
Inch by inch over these past few months he has been doing what we need him to in order for us to disarm him peacefully, or at least without war. We're getting more and more access to the country, he actually destroyed some missles (!!), and we are going to be able to root this stuff out.
So will he do it or not? Not if we just ask him to do it, even if we ask really nicely. But we're putting a clamp around the country and the dam will ultimately burst without a war.
That's why Bush is in such a frenzy, because the need for war is evaporating. But evidently Bush's global plans (whatever they are) still need war in Iraq. So he's got to get his battle in now before the rest of the world can really see that there is no need for war.
Because war is worse than the slaughter by sanctions? I like that blind, head-in-the-sand logic. Killing hundreds of thousands MORE Iraqis by sanctions over an indefinite period of time in an inconclusive process that has little hope of really working is better than a quick military action that will replace the asshole who causes all this in the first place and remove all doubts and impediments for a positive future for the people of Iraq. That's some thinking!
[quote]<strong>We're getting more and more access to the country, he actually destroyed some missles (!!), and we are going to be able to root this stuff out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you "root out" chemical weapons? If you figure it out you might want to inform Blix and Co., they've had a hell of a time finding it for the last 12 years.
Needless to say:
Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it.
Of course, Blix is just a war-mongering liar.
[quote]<strong>So will he do it or not? Not if we just ask him to do it, even if we ask really nicely. But we're putting a clamp around the country and the dam will ultimately burst without a war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So we punish the people until *they* do our job for us? Fantastic!
"I will beat you until you overthrow the master that beats you!"
[quote]<strong>That's why Bush is in such a frenzy, because the need for war is evaporating. But evidently Bush's global plans (whatever they are) still need war in Iraq. So he's got to get his battle in now before the rest of the world can really see that there is no need for war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"global plans" for world domination, no doubt!
Just ignore the fact that he has, AT MOST, 5 more years in office.
Should the French be happy? Shouldn't those who actually give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people be happy?
And what is that way, bunge? If you honestly think that 100, 200, or 1500 inspectors (see the other thread) can disarm someone without cooperation, then you are truly not based in reality. It is totally impossible. We have tried every other option. Again, bunge, I ask you: How will the inspectors find everything without Saddam's cooperation?
Enough with the vague statements about how we can avoid war...tell us HOW. He will continue to deceive, and as long as he does that the inspections will fail. Oh sure, they might LOOK like their working...but he'll still have his weapons.
I say again:
Inspections have failed
Sanctions have failed
Limited military action has failed
Resolutions have failed
If you argue force is a last resort, then we are there.