Hardly, and it's clear there was an attempt to fit them within the UN guidelines. In only slightly more than a quarter of the test firings, tests that did not included the extra payload, did they actually have a longer range than allowed. Iraq declared all of this and the missiles were destroyed. The designer of the missile, also interviewed for the article above, corroborated this recently:
Quote:
Al-Tamimi said that he gave his word to Saddam Hussein that the al-Samoudmissiles were designed to conform with U.N. regulations and that his staff signed official letters forswearing proscribed activities.
FACT: The US found band weapons programs on the shelf IN VIOLATION OF 1441 ready to be restarted once the US and UK were off Saddam's back and France and Germany gave Iraq a huge influx of cash from sweat heart oil deals.
Not fact. Speculative prediction. You have no idea what the Saddam or Quday would have decided in the future. Throughout this whole conflict you have not been able to accurately assess either the situation or Iraqi intentions.
Hardly, and it's clear there was an attempt to fit them within the UN guidelines. In only slightly more than a quarter of the test firings, tests that did not included the extra payload, did they actually have a longer range than allowed. Iraq declared all of this and the missiles were destroyed. The designer of the missile, also interviewed for the article above, corroborated this recently:
Was an attempt to fit them within guidelines? Interesting.
I suppose Blix and his panel didn't know what they were talking about when he said they were not allowed and ordered them destroyed... perhaps you should have been spearheading the effort.
Quote:
So the only proscribed weapon Iraq had was a missile they actually attempted to fit within the UN limits.
So Iraq actually did have proscribed weapons? Wow, it's almost like your bitter little episode with dredging up year-old quotes has been an excercise in futility.
It's ok. I'm sure you'll get the sand out of your vagina one day.
The US war to oust Saddam was a great humantarian action
Interesting, because the humanitarians I know who are or recently have been risking their lives in and around Iraq and afghanistan strongly disagree.
And my point that you seem to have missed is that focusing on this pet justification ignores the broader problem and in fact could likely be more harmful overall.
I suppose Blix and his panel didn't know what they were talking about when he said they were not allowed and ordered them destroyed.
Guess why they weren't a 'smoking gun.' Go on.
Quote:
So Iraq actually did have proscribed weapons?
Apparently it was not deliberate, and it certainly was not significant. In fact, at the time there was debate within the inspection team as to whether these actually should be considered banned. It was so close it was a relatively subjective call, and not indicative of a deliberate violate of the UN guidelines.
Quote:
It's ok. I'm sure you'll get the sand out of your vagina one day.
So you substitute real thinking with insults?
So what was your original post?:
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
There's never been a question about Iraq having proscribed weapons from anyone with half a brain.
Whether Iraq had proscribed weapons has always been a question. How would you know for certain before, especially when we now know there was no intention to have banned weapons. This statement did not deal with the facts, it dealt with speculation that was unfounded.
Note that there is every indication Iraq clearly wanted longer range missiles in the future.
Was an attempt to fit them within guidelines? Interesting.
I suppose Blix and his panel didn't know what they were talking about when he said they were not allowed and ordered them destroyed... perhaps you should have been spearheading the effort.
So Iraq actually did have proscribed weapons? Wow, it's almost like your bitter little episode with dredging up year-old quotes has been an excercise in futility.
It's ok. I'm sure you'll get the sand out of your vagina one day.
Ok, but there were NO actual WOMD shortly before the war that could pose a threat to us were there? Also no way to deploy them in order to make them a threat to us. That's the subject at hand here. Misdirection or speculation into other things won't help the case for this war to be justified.
" Note that there is every indication Iraq clearly wanted longer range missiles in the future. "
Unless they were ICBMs it's not relevent to this particular discussion. Also it wouldn't have helped the case for war as it was something that hadn't actually happened.
Interesting, because the humanitarians I know who are or recently have been risking their lives in and around Iraq and afghanistan strongly disagree.
Wonderful argument.
I know smart people who think you're a dummy head.
Quote:
And my point that you seem to have missed is that focusing on this pet justification ignores the broader problem and in fact could likely be more harmful overall.
Is it likely to be more harmful overall? Howso?
Quote:
Guess why they weren't a 'smoking gun.' Go on.
Smoking gun?
Quote:
Apparently it was not deliberate, and it certainly was not significant. In fact, at the time there was debate within the inspection team as to whether these actually should be considered banned. It was so close it was a relatively subjective call, and not indicative of a deliberate violate of the UN guidelines.
A harmless accident... so accidental and innocent Saddam initially refused to destroy them?
I'm not saying this was Hitler 2.0 ready to overrun the world, I'm proving that your attempt to nail me with a year-old quote was silly. I was right then and I'm right now. It doesn't matter if it was two missiles that were half-an-inch too long or 80 nuclear bombs, Iraq had proscribed weapons.
If you're going to work that hard to dig something up on me surely you can find something better.
Quote:
How would you know for certain before, especially when we now know there was no intention to have banned weapons.
Intentions? You know intentions? Wonderful. You seriously should be King of the World.
I think it's funny that you would lambast someone for saying Saddam intended to undertake regional warfare, but when you talk about his intentions... heh.
--
bunge:
Quote:
What crises was happening over the past few years, and how was war the best solution for those crises?
I thought you'd never ask!
Crisis: Sanctions slaughter of the Iraqi people.
Solution: The ouster of Saddam!
--
jimmac:
Quote:
Ok, but there were NO actual WOMD shortly before the war that could pose a threat to us were there?
WOMD? Threat to us?
You're worse than giant about staying on topic. Argue with the points I make, not phantoms.
I know smart people who think you're a dummy head.
Is it likely to be more harmful overall? Howso?
Smoking gun?
A harmless accident... so accidental and innocent Saddam initially refused to destroy them?
I'm not saying this was Hitler 2.0 ready to overrun the world, I'm proving that your attempt to nail me with a year-old quote was silly. I was right then and I'm right now. It doesn't matter if it was two missiles that were half-an-inch too long or 80 nuclear bombs, Iraq had proscribed weapons.
If you're going to work that hard to dig something up on me surely you can find something better.
Intentions? You know intentions? Wonderful. You seriously should be King of the World.
I think it's funny that you would lambast someone for saying Saddam intended to undertake regional warfare, but when you talk about his intentions... heh.
--
bunge:
I thought you'd never ask!
Crisis: Sanctions slaughter of the Iraqi people.
Solution: The ouster of Saddam!
--
jimmac:
WOMD? Threat to us?
You're worse than giant about staying on topic. Argue with the points I make, not phantoms.
I suggest you stay on the topic of the thread. Sorry, you can't just make it up as you go along.
From the article in reference to the title of this thread :
" The investigators assess that Iraq did not, as charged in London and Washington, resume production of its most lethal nerve agent, VX, or learn to make it last longer in storage. And they have found the former nuclear weapons program, described as a "grave and gathering danger" by President Bush and a "mortal threat" by Vice President Cheney, in much the same shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s. "
Ousting Hussein because the U.N. is killing people doesn't make sense. An analogy would be outlawing cars because people drive faster than the speed limit.
Ousting Hussein because the U.N. is killing people doesn't make sense. An analogy would be outlawing cars because people drive faster than the speed limit.
It would be an analogy, yes, and a terrible one.
The war to oust Hussein was a net positive from a humanitarian standpoint.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
And the missiles were... proscribed.
Hardly, and it's clear there was an attempt to fit them within the UN guidelines. In only slightly more than a quarter of the test firings, tests that did not included the extra payload, did they actually have a longer range than allowed. Iraq declared all of this and the missiles were destroyed. The designer of the missile, also interviewed for the article above, corroborated this recently:
Al-Tamimi said that he gave his word to Saddam Hussein that the al-Samoudmissiles were designed to conform with U.N. regulations and that his staff signed official letters forswearing proscribed activities.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/attack/4111.php
Your original statement in march was:
Originally posted by groverat
There's never been a question about Iraq having proscribed weapons from anyone with half a brain.
So the only proscribed weapon Iraq had was a missile they actually attempted to fit within the UN limits.
So maybe you are right, because those of us with whole brains knew there was a question.
Originally posted by Scott
FACT: The US found band weapons programs on the shelf IN VIOLATION OF 1441 ready to be restarted once the US and UK were off Saddam's back and France and Germany gave Iraq a huge influx of cash from sweat heart oil deals.
Not fact. Speculative prediction. You have no idea what the Saddam or Quday would have decided in the future. Throughout this whole conflict you have not been able to accurately assess either the situation or Iraqi intentions.
Hardly, and it's clear there was an attempt to fit them within the UN guidelines. In only slightly more than a quarter of the test firings, tests that did not included the extra payload, did they actually have a longer range than allowed. Iraq declared all of this and the missiles were destroyed. The designer of the missile, also interviewed for the article above, corroborated this recently:
Was an attempt to fit them within guidelines? Interesting.
I suppose Blix and his panel didn't know what they were talking about when he said they were not allowed and ordered them destroyed... perhaps you should have been spearheading the effort.
So the only proscribed weapon Iraq had was a missile they actually attempted to fit within the UN limits.
So Iraq actually did have proscribed weapons? Wow, it's almost like your bitter little episode with dredging up year-old quotes has been an excercise in futility.
It's ok. I'm sure you'll get the sand out of your vagina one day.
Originally posted by groverat
The US war to oust Saddam was a great humantarian action
Interesting, because the humanitarians I know who are or recently have been risking their lives in and around Iraq and afghanistan strongly disagree.
And my point that you seem to have missed is that focusing on this pet justification ignores the broader problem and in fact could likely be more harmful overall.
Originally posted by groverat
I suppose Blix and his panel didn't know what they were talking about when he said they were not allowed and ordered them destroyed.
Guess why they weren't a 'smoking gun.' Go on.
So Iraq actually did have proscribed weapons?
Apparently it was not deliberate, and it certainly was not significant. In fact, at the time there was debate within the inspection team as to whether these actually should be considered banned. It was so close it was a relatively subjective call, and not indicative of a deliberate violate of the UN guidelines.
It's ok. I'm sure you'll get the sand out of your vagina one day.
So you substitute real thinking with insults?
So what was your original post?:
Originally posted by groverat
There's never been a question about Iraq having proscribed weapons from anyone with half a brain.
Whether Iraq had proscribed weapons has always been a question. How would you know for certain before, especially when we now know there was no intention to have banned weapons. This statement did not deal with the facts, it dealt with speculation that was unfounded.
Note that there is every indication Iraq clearly wanted longer range missiles in the future.
Originally posted by groverat
Humantarian crises are secondary to making sure everyone is happy with whatever mass-murdering solution the rich nations agree on.
What crises was happening over the past few years, and how was war the best solution for those crises?
Originally posted by groverat
giant:
Was an attempt to fit them within guidelines? Interesting.
I suppose Blix and his panel didn't know what they were talking about when he said they were not allowed and ordered them destroyed... perhaps you should have been spearheading the effort.
So Iraq actually did have proscribed weapons? Wow, it's almost like your bitter little episode with dredging up year-old quotes has been an excercise in futility.
It's ok. I'm sure you'll get the sand out of your vagina one day.
Ok, but there were NO actual WOMD shortly before the war that could pose a threat to us were there? Also no way to deploy them in order to make them a threat to us. That's the subject at hand here. Misdirection or speculation into other things won't help the case for this war to be justified.
It's quite simple really.
" Note that there is every indication Iraq clearly wanted longer range missiles in the future. "
Unless they were ICBMs it's not relevent to this particular discussion. Also it wouldn't have helped the case for war as it was something that hadn't actually happened.
They just won't give up.
Interesting, because the humanitarians I know who are or recently have been risking their lives in and around Iraq and afghanistan strongly disagree.
Wonderful argument.
I know smart people who think you're a dummy head.
And my point that you seem to have missed is that focusing on this pet justification ignores the broader problem and in fact could likely be more harmful overall.
Is it likely to be more harmful overall? Howso?
Guess why they weren't a 'smoking gun.' Go on.
Smoking gun?
Apparently it was not deliberate, and it certainly was not significant. In fact, at the time there was debate within the inspection team as to whether these actually should be considered banned. It was so close it was a relatively subjective call, and not indicative of a deliberate violate of the UN guidelines.
A harmless accident... so accidental and innocent Saddam initially refused to destroy them?
I'm not saying this was Hitler 2.0 ready to overrun the world, I'm proving that your attempt to nail me with a year-old quote was silly. I was right then and I'm right now. It doesn't matter if it was two missiles that were half-an-inch too long or 80 nuclear bombs, Iraq had proscribed weapons.
If you're going to work that hard to dig something up on me surely you can find something better.
How would you know for certain before, especially when we now know there was no intention to have banned weapons.
Intentions? You know intentions? Wonderful. You seriously should be King of the World.
I think it's funny that you would lambast someone for saying Saddam intended to undertake regional warfare, but when you talk about his intentions... heh.
--
bunge:
What crises was happening over the past few years, and how was war the best solution for those crises?
I thought you'd never ask!
Crisis: Sanctions slaughter of the Iraqi people.
Solution: The ouster of Saddam!
--
jimmac:
Ok, but there were NO actual WOMD shortly before the war that could pose a threat to us were there?
WOMD? Threat to us?
You're worse than giant about staying on topic. Argue with the points I make, not phantoms.
Originally posted by groverat
giant:
Wonderful argument.
I know smart people who think you're a dummy head.
Is it likely to be more harmful overall? Howso?
Smoking gun?
A harmless accident... so accidental and innocent Saddam initially refused to destroy them?
I'm not saying this was Hitler 2.0 ready to overrun the world, I'm proving that your attempt to nail me with a year-old quote was silly. I was right then and I'm right now. It doesn't matter if it was two missiles that were half-an-inch too long or 80 nuclear bombs, Iraq had proscribed weapons.
If you're going to work that hard to dig something up on me surely you can find something better.
Intentions? You know intentions? Wonderful. You seriously should be King of the World.
I think it's funny that you would lambast someone for saying Saddam intended to undertake regional warfare, but when you talk about his intentions... heh.
--
bunge:
I thought you'd never ask!
Crisis: Sanctions slaughter of the Iraqi people.
Solution: The ouster of Saddam!
--
jimmac:
WOMD? Threat to us?
You're worse than giant about staying on topic. Argue with the points I make, not phantoms.
I suggest you stay on the topic of the thread. Sorry, you can't just make it up as you go along.
From the article in reference to the title of this thread :
------------------------------------------------------------
" The investigators assess that Iraq did not, as charged in London and Washington, resume production of its most lethal nerve agent, VX, or learn to make it last longer in storage. And they have found the former nuclear weapons program, described as a "grave and gathering danger" by President Bush and a "mortal threat" by Vice President Cheney, in much the same shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s. "
------------------------------------------------------------
Originally by groverat :
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Wonderful argument.
I know smart people who think you're a dummy head. "
------------------------------------------------------------
I know this one wasn't directed at me but it's a priceless example of someone who can't come up with anything else!
In the art of misdirection you're really good. It won't win an argument however.
Originally posted by groverat
WOMD? Threat to us?
You're worse than giant about staying on topic. Argue with the points I make, not phantoms.
Well, at least you're willing to admit that the WOMD and the threat to the US were "phantoms".
Originally posted by addabox
Well, at least you're willing to admit that the WOMD and the threat to the US were "phantoms".
Kind of like cornering me into "admitting" that I'm heterosexual and like Chinese food. BUSTED!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386357.stm
Originally posted by groverat
I thought you'd never ask!
Crisis: Sanctions slaughter of the Iraqi people.
Solution: The ouster of Saddam!
This is about as intelligent as:
Crisis: America attacks innocent people and kills them
Solution: Rename America!
This is about as intelligent as:
Crisis: America attacks innocent people and kills them
Solution: Rename America!
Did we rename Hussein? I don't get it.
Explain your humor.
Originally posted by groverat
Did we rename Hussein? I don't get it.
Explain your humor.
Ousting Hussein because the U.N. is killing people doesn't make sense. An analogy would be outlawing cars because people drive faster than the speed limit.
Ousting Hussein because the U.N. is killing people doesn't make sense. An analogy would be outlawing cars because people drive faster than the speed limit.
It would be an analogy, yes, and a terrible one.
The war to oust Hussein was a net positive from a humanitarian standpoint.