Hey, stupid. Iraq was never said to be in breach of 1441 by the UN. What you are referring to is the DRAFTING of 1441. Do your research.
Uh-Oh I'm stupid...
....you are still playing word games here.....we might have to rename you Giant Cochran.
...this is from UN.org dated 8/11/2002 (November 8, 2002)
Quote:
Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ?MATERIAL BREACH? OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)
Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ?Serious Consequences? for Continued Violations
Holding Iraq in ?material breach? of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a ?final opportunity to comply? with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).
By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities._ It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.
Under the new inspection regime established by the resolution, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have ?immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access? to any sites and buildings in Iraq, including presidential sites._ They would also have the right to remove or destroy any weapons, or related items, they found.
The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution._ It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material._ Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment.
That's a good point. If Iraq was in breach, then I'd argue that they were a threat.
How exacly does that make Iraq a threat. In other words, Exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'? In other words, if Iraq was in material breach, but doesn't have weapons that pose and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people,' then the war was not justified.
If someone is being tried for murder and commit purjury, you can't just say, 'well, their guilty of murder.'
Quote:
But just wait---giant's going to say that they didn't find Iraq in breach of anything
Maybe because the UN didn't. Somehow now I'm in the wrong because I stick to actual fact?
But it doesn't matter, because the US went to the UN for diplomatic reasons. The decision to attack was already made and only the Powell convinced the rest of the Bush admin to go through the UN first.
So, I ask again, exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'?
Uh-Oh I'm stupid... ....you are still playing word games here..
You are even stupider because you posted it again. Read the title and first two paragraphs.
Of course, you should already know this. Of course, what can we expect from someone who posted this twice thinking it says Iraq is in material breach of 1441. ****ing read it before posting
Here. I'll help you.
Quote:
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ?MATERIAL BREACH? OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441
I really feel sorry for you. Note that 1441 wasn't even officially adopted until Nov 8, 2002.
Please just answer the damn question. Actually looking at an UNSCOM or UNMOVIC report will help you. I'm asking you a really simple question.
No you are not. It's a STUPID question. STUPID. Remember how certain teachers would say to you "there are no stupid questions"? Well, they were horribly wrong. There ARE, and this is one of them. Everyone knows what WMD is...and everyone knows that what you are trying to say is that Iraq didn't and doesn't have any.
But just wait folks, giant will will try to use this against me again....saying that I'm avoiding questions and that I'm nothing but a plebeian. Meanwhile, giant cannot present a single shred of evidence showing Iraq has disarmed.
He'll just keep clinging to the pathetic notion that since we can't see them, they aren't there.
He'll just keep clinging to the pathetic notion that since we can't see them, they aren't there.
What is this 'they' that you keep referring to? Tabun? VX? What? Exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'?
If you can't aswer the question, then you can't claim to 'know' that Iraq had 'WMD'.
the press release clearly states that Iraq has not complied with the UN's disarmament requirements.
The press release clearly states the adoption of 1441, which was the UN and US response to the 'material breach' you speak of. Of course, you claimed it said, and I quote, 'the UN found Iraq to be in Material Breach of 1441 in August.' (note that it can't be in material breach before the resolution was even adopted, genius) But it didn't, and it never did.
The UN responded to this 'material breach' and the US accepted that response. Move on.
How slow are you that you posted it twice as proof of material breach of 1441 when it clearly is the adoption of 1441, as the title states?
What is this 'they' that you keep referring to? Tabun? VX? What? Exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'?
If you can't aswer the question, then you can't claim to 'know' that Iraq had 'WMD'.
And do you "know"? Of course not. "Knowing" a thing, ANY thing is pretty difficult. What I'm saying is that given the Saddam's history with WMD, violation of UN resolutions, lack of destruction evidence, etc...any reasonable person would CONCLUDE that he still has them...or now, IRAQ has them. I have never claimed (I don't think) that I know 100% for certain those weapons are there. I don't see how really any layperson CAN know that, do you? What I HAVE asked is how any intelligent, logical and reasonable person could look at the facts and conclude there are no banned weapons there. That's all. If you are trying to make the stunning and unprecedented point that I don't know for sure, then congratulations...I freely admit that. The again, I guess you owe me some congrats too...since you, by the same logic, don't KNOW that such WMD don't exist.
that's my screwing up the UN's 8/11/02 thing---the 11 is November. I'm old, sometimes I miss things.
No, you screwed up everything there. You said, and I quote, that 'the UN found Iraq to be in Material Breach of 1441 in August' and not a single part of that statement is correct. Furthermore, you chastised me for not wanting to comment on something that you are completely wrong about. You're completely rediculous
No, you screwed up everything there. You said, and I quote, that 'the UN found Iraq to be in Material Breach of 1441 in August' and not a single part of that statement is correct. Furthermore, you chastised me for not wanting to comment on something that you are completely wrong about. You're completely rediculous
go on, git
He got a few details wrong. I'd change "found in breach OF 1441" to "found in breach WITH 1441". Then, it's accurate. I think that's what he meant...but I'm not sure. In other words, I don't "know". \
What I'm saying is that given the Saddam's history with WMD, violation of UN resolutions, lack of destruction evidence, etc...any reasonable person would CONCLUDE that he still has them...or now, IRAQ has them.
Has what exactly? The question isn't 'does Iraq have decomposed spores that pose no danger yet were unaccounted for.' The question is exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'? This is the reason we went to war, says Bush. If he doesn't have weapons that are a threat, then the war was not justified. Saddam's liack of cooperation doesn't justify war, since the issue that drove us to war when we did was the 'urgent threat.' So says Bush.
The only valid way for you to be convinced that Saddam was a threat to the US is to know exactly what made him a threat. If you can't say what makes him a threat, then the claim is completely unfounded and without any backing.
You can't just throw out accusations without specific facts to back it up.
He got a few details wrong. I'd change "found in breach OF 1441" to "found in breach WITH 1441".
No. that's still incorrect. Iraq was found in breach of 687, the response was the adoption of 1441. That's the end of the story for that material breach. Everything further falls under 1441.
So how exactly was Iraq and imminent danger to the US? If anyone is an imminent danger to the US, it's North Korea. They can hit me with a nuke where I'm sitting here in LA. I don't see how weapons, if they still do exist, that are so deeply hidden can directly affect the United States.
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ?MATERIAL BREACH? OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)
Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ?Serious Consequences? for Continued Violations
Holding Iraq in ?material breach? of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a ?final opportunity to comply? with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).
If they said Iraq was dirty---they had good reason to believe this. More semantics over what was degraded, and what wasn't is something for an O.J.-style defense. Generally speaking, the US was in good company, when it said it Iraq must disarm. There is no denying that. The only way to deny that Iraq had CBN is to deny the SC's ability to discern the reality of the situation.
What was the threat? Ask the UN why Iraq needed to disarm.
Have a good weekend---must go Hallibut fishing---I'll think about you guys.
Has what exactly? The question isn't 'does Iraq have decomposed spores that pose no danger yet were unaccounted for.' The question is exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'? This is the reason we went to war, says Bush. If he doesn't have weapons that are a threat, then the war was not justified. Saddam's liack of cooperation doesn't justify war, since the issue that drove us to war when we did was the 'urgent threat.' So says Bush.
The only valid way for you to be convinced that Saddam was a threat to the US is to know exactly what made him a threat. If you can't say what makes him a threat, then the claim is completely unfounded and without any backing.
You can't just throw out accusations without specific facts to back it up.
Wow. Just...wow. You are really starting to amaze me. I guess I have to play along.
No, decomposed spores that pose no threat would not, IMO, be considered a imminent threat. ANY potent chemical or biological wepaons would be. What I am saying is that I believe Iraq had at least some of these weapons and most likely, the capacity to produce more. I think that for reasons I have now stated at least a million times. You won't listen to that last sentence, though, and you'll accuse me of making unsupported statements.
I contend that if Iraq has any potent weapons, they WERE a threat, and very REAL threat to the US and US interests around the world because there is the possibilty (or was) that Saddam, with his anti-US stance would give them to a terror group. In a post 9/11 world, I think that risk is unacceptable! This constitutes an immediate threat in every way.
BR:
Quote:
So how exactly was Iraq and imminent danger to the US? If anyone is an imminent danger to the US, it's North Korea. They can hit me with a nuke where I'm sitting here in LA. I don't see how weapons, if they still do exist, that are so deeply hidden can directly affect the United States.
I think I just answered that.
I agree with North Korea being major threat. However, that is not in any way the same situation. The question becomes what to do about NK. I don't know. Getting into a war with them would be potential blood-bath. We'd win, but I can only imagine the casualties. Then, there is the possibility they could go nuclear. In any case, the multilateral approach (which the leftward side of the Iraq debate argued is so imperative) is the best on this one, because it prevents NK from power-brokering with the US, which I think we can probably agree is their real goal.
BR, don't fall into the trap of thinking that because we are focused on Iraq we can't focus on NK. I'm not sure what people are saying when they criticize and compare the NK strategy to the Iraq war. It's almost as if they are ADVOCATING we attack them too!
giant:
Quote:
No. that's still incorrect. Iraq was found in breach of 687, the response was the adoption of 1441. That's the end of the story for that material breach. Everything further falls under 1441.
Oh, and he got every detail wrong.
Whatever details he got wrong, he got the overall point right. I saw he had the details wrong as well, but understood the overall point. Of course, you couldn't or wouldn't, because you are STILL obsessed with semantics. The point is the UN did find Iraq in breach and offered it one last chance to disarm. There is no question that Iraq did not do so. End of story. Serious consequences must and did follow. I suppose we are going to get into the definition of THAT, now? As one might imagine, I also disagree with this statement you made:
Quote:
Saddam's liack of cooperation doesn't justify war, since the issue that drove us to war when we did was the 'urgent threat.' So says Bush.
That's not really correct. And, why didn't Saddam's lack of cooperation justify war? Really, give me another alternative. We tried sanctions. We tried inspections. We tried limited military strikes. We tried it all. Give me another option. War is a last resort, and if Saddam was required to disarm, which he was, we were "at" that last resort.
As far as what Bush said about going to war, the most clear reason was the threat I mentioned earlier in this post. But, there WERE other reasons. You can revise history all you want, but the President DID mention the humanitarian situation, the slaughter and torture of the Iraqi people and the stability of the region. There were a multitude of reasons. WMD was the main one. Perhaps, as I've said, Bush should have focused more on the other things to cover himself poltically. Funny, though...I seem to remember a lot of anti-war stanced people arguing that the Bush administration kept "changing" their argument for war. Hmmmm. Then, the same people turn around and say that the only thing focused on at ALL was the WMD.
Now, this thread is about lying. I contend Bush didn't. Here is another interesting link on the topic.
The CIA's failure to pass on the details of what it knew helped keep the uranium-purchase story alive until shortly before the war in Iraq began, when the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector told the Security Council that the documents were forgeries.
Quote:
Rice, in defending Bush's decision to claim that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Africa in his State of the Union speech on Jan. 28, said she was unaware that there were doubts about the information. "Maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency," Rice said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, "but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery."
I said earlier I think the intel could be flawed or misleading to the President.
What I am saying is that I believe Iraq had at least some of these weapons and most likely, the capacity to produce more. I think that for reasons I have now stated at least a million times.
Well, we now know for a fact that it did not have the cabability to produce more, at least not at any level even coming close to approaching what would be considered useful in regional conflicts, much less a threat to the US. Note that NOTHING has been found at any of the sites in the US's list, not even anything indicating a weapons program of any kind whatsoever. This not only means that anything that possibly did exist was on a tiny, tiny scale, but that ALL OF THE BUSH ADMIN INTEL WAS WRONG.
As for the fact that you 'believe Iraq had at least some of these weapons,' why is it so difficult for you to say what weapons you 'believe Iraq had.' If you can't name the weapons, then you have based your belief on hearsay and not on fact.
Quote:
Then, the same people turn around and say that the only thing focused on at ALL was the WMD
Stop with this revisionist bullshit.
The reason we started the war when we did was because Iraq was portrayed as an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat.'
No matter how hard you try, you can't change the past.
Quote:
I said earlier I think the intel could be flawed or misleading to the President.
Sorry, but maybe you missed all of the now hundereds of intel analysts from the US and Britain that have been all over the media explaining in detail how the Bush and Blair admins pressured them to skew intel for political reasons. It was these administrations that skewed the info, not the Intel agencies. THis is crystal clear at this point and has been thoroughly detailed.
In conclusion, I ask for the 20th+ time: exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'?
Well, we now know for a fact that it did not have the cabability to produce more, at least not at any level even coming close to approaching what would be considered useful in regional conflicts, much less a threat to the US. Note that NOTHING has been found at any of the sites in the US's list, not even anything indicating a weapons program of any kind whatsoever. This not only means that anything that possibly did exist was on a tiny, tiny scale, but that ALL OF THE BUSH ADMIN INTEL WAS WRONG.
As for the fact that you 'believe Iraq had at least some of these weapons,' why is it so difficult for you to say what weapons you 'believe Iraq had.' If you can't name the weapons, then you have based your belief on heresay and not on fact.
1) The case is not closed on the "capacity" debate. You'd like to think so, but it isn't. I agree it becomes less likely with time.
2) "Bush Admin. Intel". That's deceptive. It's intel that was PRESENTED to them. It's not "Bush Admin. Intel".
Quote:
Stop with this revisionist bullshit.
The reason we started the war when we did was because Iraq was portrayed as an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat.'
No matter how hard you try, you can't change the past.
Really now, giant. You can't possibly be linking to "information clearing house" with a header: "Reviewing the lies". Please.
Bush DID reference other things. From the State of the Union itself:
Quote:
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
As I said, he was even criticized for it. The Admin. was seen by people like you as "saying anything to go to war" Now, you're telling me they actually DID stick to an argument? Which is it? It doesn't matter anyway, because with that one example your entire argument that there were "no other reasons" is totally disproved. This was the highest profile Presidential speech of the year, given only two months before the war began. You lose.
Quote:
Sorry, but maybe you missed all of the now hundereds of intel analysts from the US and Britain that have been all over the media explaining in detail how the Bush and Blair admins pressured them to skew intel for political reasons. It was these administrations that skewed the info, not the Intel agencies. THis is crystal clear at this point and has been thoroughly detailed.
Hundreds? What? Yes, then, giant: I MUST HAVE missed the "hundreds" of "intel analysts" (whatever the fvck that means) "all over the media" explaing "in detail" how they were pressured. Whatever. You are so full of shit on this one.
giant, this "question" of your is really getting tired. I have already said that there is no way a layperson can say exactly what they had and what they didn't. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a broad area, and includes chemical and biological weapons. Anthrax, Sarin, Mustard Gas, and Botulinium toxin are all things he had before, correct? This is by no means an inclusive or exclusive list.
Do you think these things aren't a threat? I'm not trying to avoid your question. I just don't understand how proving I personally don't know the exact type and configuration of the WMD proves Iraq doesn't have any. I have never claimed to know this. Do you know it? I just don't understand it's relevence to this discussion.
Iraq either has WMD or not. We've already found banned delivery systems (please, please giant...don't make me go look up the link...it was before the war). Any amount of any potent bio or chem weapons would qualify as "WMD", would it not? As far as how much would be a threat, I'm not the expert there. We'd have to rely on weapons experts for that.
In other words, regardless of the type of WMD it is, it constitutes an imminent threat.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Hey, stupid. Iraq was never said to be in breach of 1441 by the UN. What you are referring to is the DRAFTING of 1441. Do your research.
Uh-Oh I'm stupid...
....you are still playing word games here.....we might have to rename you Giant Cochran.
...this is from UN.org dated 8/11/2002 (November 8, 2002)
Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ?MATERIAL BREACH? OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)
Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ?Serious Consequences? for Continued Violations
Holding Iraq in ?material breach? of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a ?final opportunity to comply? with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).
By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities._ It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.
Under the new inspection regime established by the resolution, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have ?immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access? to any sites and buildings in Iraq, including presidential sites._ They would also have the right to remove or destroy any weapons, or related items, they found.
The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution._ It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material._ Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's a good point. If Iraq was in breach, then I'd argue that they were a threat.
How exacly does that make Iraq a threat. In other words, Exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'? In other words, if Iraq was in material breach, but doesn't have weapons that pose and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people,' then the war was not justified.
If someone is being tried for murder and commit purjury, you can't just say, 'well, their guilty of murder.'
But just wait---giant's going to say that they didn't find Iraq in breach of anything
Maybe because the UN didn't. Somehow now I'm in the wrong because I stick to actual fact?
But it doesn't matter, because the US went to the UN for diplomatic reasons. The decision to attack was already made and only the Powell convinced the rest of the Bush admin to go through the UN first.
So, I ask again, exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'?
Originally posted by ena
Uh-Oh I'm stupid... ....you are still playing word games here..
You are even stupider because you posted it again. Read the title and first two paragraphs.
Of course, you should already know this. Of course, what can we expect from someone who posted this twice thinking it says Iraq is in material breach of 1441. ****ing read it before posting
Here. I'll help you.
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ?MATERIAL BREACH? OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441
I really feel sorry for you. Note that 1441 wasn't even officially adopted until Nov 8, 2002.
Originally posted by giant
Please just answer the damn question. Actually looking at an UNSCOM or UNMOVIC report will help you. I'm asking you a really simple question.
No you are not. It's a STUPID question. STUPID. Remember how certain teachers would say to you "there are no stupid questions"? Well, they were horribly wrong. There ARE, and this is one of them. Everyone knows what WMD is...and everyone knows that what you are trying to say is that Iraq didn't and doesn't have any.
But just wait folks, giant will will try to use this against me again....saying that I'm avoiding questions and that I'm nothing but a plebeian. Meanwhile, giant cannot present a single shred of evidence showing Iraq has disarmed.
He'll just keep clinging to the pathetic notion that since we can't see them, they aren't there.
Originally posted by giant
You are even stupider because you posted it again. Read the title and first two paragraphs.
......****ing read it before posting
Here. I'll help you.
I really feel sorry for you.
The 8/11/2002 is Nov, 8 2002--the date of the press release.....it clearly states that Iraq has not complied with the UN's disarmament requirements.
You sound agitated, you don't think you've gotten in over your head do you?
Originally posted by SDW2001
He'll just keep clinging to the pathetic notion that since we can't see them, they aren't there.
What is this 'they' that you keep referring to? Tabun? VX? What? Exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'?
If you can't aswer the question, then you can't claim to 'know' that Iraq had 'WMD'.
Originally posted by ena
the press release clearly states that Iraq has not complied with the UN's disarmament requirements.
The press release clearly states the adoption of 1441, which was the UN and US response to the 'material breach' you speak of. Of course, you claimed it said, and I quote, 'the UN found Iraq to be in Material Breach of 1441 in August.' (note that it can't be in material breach before the resolution was even adopted, genius) But it didn't, and it never did.
The UN responded to this 'material breach' and the US accepted that response. Move on.
How slow are you that you posted it twice as proof of material breach of 1441 when it clearly is the adoption of 1441, as the title states?
Contrary at the common opinion, ostrich do no get their head in the sand for avoiding danger, but they do it, for searching food.
Ostrich face danger with courage also in case of need. Beware of this animal, he can become dangerous when he raise his childrens.
PS : to come back in the topic, name-calling are not allowed in AI. If it continue a moderator of these forum will closed this thread.
Originally posted by giant
Of course, you claimed it said, and I quote, 'the UN found Iraq to be in Material Breach of 1441 in August.'
that's my screwing up the UN's 8/11/02 thing---the 11 is November. I'm old, sometimes I miss things.
But not that Iraq was dirty by UN standards in November.
I gotta git or I'm going to get fired. Bye.
Originally posted by giant
What is this 'they' that you keep referring to? Tabun? VX? What? Exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'?
If you can't aswer the question, then you can't claim to 'know' that Iraq had 'WMD'.
And do you "know"? Of course not. "Knowing" a thing, ANY thing is pretty difficult. What I'm saying is that given the Saddam's history with WMD, violation of UN resolutions, lack of destruction evidence, etc...any reasonable person would CONCLUDE that he still has them...or now, IRAQ has them. I have never claimed (I don't think) that I know 100% for certain those weapons are there. I don't see how really any layperson CAN know that, do you? What I HAVE asked is how any intelligent, logical and reasonable person could look at the facts and conclude there are no banned weapons there. That's all. If you are trying to make the stunning and unprecedented point that I don't know for sure, then congratulations...I freely admit that. The again, I guess you owe me some congrats too...since you, by the same logic, don't KNOW that such WMD don't exist.
Originally posted by ena
that's my screwing up the UN's 8/11/02 thing---the 11 is November. I'm old, sometimes I miss things.
No, you screwed up everything there. You said, and I quote, that 'the UN found Iraq to be in Material Breach of 1441 in August' and not a single part of that statement is correct. Furthermore, you chastised me for not wanting to comment on something that you are completely wrong about. You're completely rediculous
I gotta git or I'm going to get fired. Bye.
go on, git
Originally posted by giant
No, you screwed up everything there. You said, and I quote, that 'the UN found Iraq to be in Material Breach of 1441 in August' and not a single part of that statement is correct. Furthermore, you chastised me for not wanting to comment on something that you are completely wrong about. You're completely rediculous
go on, git
He got a few details wrong. I'd change "found in breach OF 1441" to "found in breach WITH 1441". Then, it's accurate. I think that's what he meant...but I'm not sure. In other words, I don't "know".
Originally posted by SDW2001
What I'm saying is that given the Saddam's history with WMD, violation of UN resolutions, lack of destruction evidence, etc...any reasonable person would CONCLUDE that he still has them...or now, IRAQ has them.
Has what exactly? The question isn't 'does Iraq have decomposed spores that pose no danger yet were unaccounted for.' The question is exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'? This is the reason we went to war, says Bush. If he doesn't have weapons that are a threat, then the war was not justified. Saddam's liack of cooperation doesn't justify war, since the issue that drove us to war when we did was the 'urgent threat.' So says Bush.
The only valid way for you to be convinced that Saddam was a threat to the US is to know exactly what made him a threat. If you can't say what makes him a threat, then the claim is completely unfounded and without any backing.
You can't just throw out accusations without specific facts to back it up.
Originally posted by SDW2001
He got a few details wrong. I'd change "found in breach OF 1441" to "found in breach WITH 1441".
No. that's still incorrect. Iraq was found in breach of 687, the response was the adoption of 1441. That's the end of the story for that material breach. Everything further falls under 1441.
Oh, and he got every detail wrong.
Originally posted by BR
if they still do exist, that are so deeply hidden
or degraded to the point of being useless
Originally posted by giant
Oh, and he got every detail wrong.
Every semantic detail, that is........you are well aware of the gist of this press release.....did the UN get their details wrong?
08/11/2002
Press Release
SC/7564
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ?MATERIAL BREACH? OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)
Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ?Serious Consequences? for Continued Violations
Holding Iraq in ?material breach? of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a ?final opportunity to comply? with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).
If they said Iraq was dirty---they had good reason to believe this. More semantics over what was degraded, and what wasn't is something for an O.J.-style defense. Generally speaking, the US was in good company, when it said it Iraq must disarm. There is no denying that. The only way to deny that Iraq had CBN is to deny the SC's ability to discern the reality of the situation.
What was the threat? Ask the UN why Iraq needed to disarm.
Have a good weekend---must go Hallibut fishing---I'll think about you guys.
Originally posted by giant
Has what exactly? The question isn't 'does Iraq have decomposed spores that pose no danger yet were unaccounted for.' The question is exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'? This is the reason we went to war, says Bush. If he doesn't have weapons that are a threat, then the war was not justified. Saddam's liack of cooperation doesn't justify war, since the issue that drove us to war when we did was the 'urgent threat.' So says Bush.
The only valid way for you to be convinced that Saddam was a threat to the US is to know exactly what made him a threat. If you can't say what makes him a threat, then the claim is completely unfounded and without any backing.
You can't just throw out accusations without specific facts to back it up.
Wow. Just...wow. You are really starting to amaze me. I guess I have to play along.
No, decomposed spores that pose no threat would not, IMO, be considered a imminent threat. ANY potent chemical or biological wepaons would be. What I am saying is that I believe Iraq had at least some of these weapons and most likely, the capacity to produce more. I think that for reasons I have now stated at least a million times. You won't listen to that last sentence, though, and you'll accuse me of making unsupported statements.
I contend that if Iraq has any potent weapons, they WERE a threat, and very REAL threat to the US and US interests around the world because there is the possibilty (or was) that Saddam, with his anti-US stance would give them to a terror group. In a post 9/11 world, I think that risk is unacceptable! This constitutes an immediate threat in every way.
BR:
So how exactly was Iraq and imminent danger to the US? If anyone is an imminent danger to the US, it's North Korea. They can hit me with a nuke where I'm sitting here in LA. I don't see how weapons, if they still do exist, that are so deeply hidden can directly affect the United States.
I think I just answered that.
I agree with North Korea being major threat. However, that is not in any way the same situation. The question becomes what to do about NK. I don't know. Getting into a war with them would be potential blood-bath. We'd win, but I can only imagine the casualties. Then, there is the possibility they could go nuclear. In any case, the multilateral approach (which the leftward side of the Iraq debate argued is so imperative) is the best on this one, because it prevents NK from power-brokering with the US, which I think we can probably agree is their real goal.
BR, don't fall into the trap of thinking that because we are focused on Iraq we can't focus on NK. I'm not sure what people are saying when they criticize and compare the NK strategy to the Iraq war. It's almost as if they are ADVOCATING we attack them too!
giant:
No. that's still incorrect. Iraq was found in breach of 687, the response was the adoption of 1441. That's the end of the story for that material breach. Everything further falls under 1441.
Oh, and he got every detail wrong.
Whatever details he got wrong, he got the overall point right. I saw he had the details wrong as well, but understood the overall point. Of course, you couldn't or wouldn't, because you are STILL obsessed with semantics. The point is the UN did find Iraq in breach and offered it one last chance to disarm. There is no question that Iraq did not do so. End of story. Serious consequences must and did follow. I suppose we are going to get into the definition of THAT, now? As one might imagine, I also disagree with this statement you made:
Saddam's liack of cooperation doesn't justify war, since the issue that drove us to war when we did was the 'urgent threat.' So says Bush.
That's not really correct. And, why didn't Saddam's lack of cooperation justify war? Really, give me another alternative. We tried sanctions. We tried inspections. We tried limited military strikes. We tried it all. Give me another option. War is a last resort, and if Saddam was required to disarm, which he was, we were "at" that last resort.
As far as what Bush said about going to war, the most clear reason was the threat I mentioned earlier in this post. But, there WERE other reasons. You can revise history all you want, but the President DID mention the humanitarian situation, the slaughter and torture of the Iraqi people and the stability of the region. There were a multitude of reasons. WMD was the main one. Perhaps, as I've said, Bush should have focused more on the other things to cover himself poltically. Funny, though...I seem to remember a lot of anti-war stanced people arguing that the Bush administration kept "changing" their argument for war. Hmmmm. Then, the same people turn around and say that the only thing focused on at ALL was the WMD.
Now, this thread is about lying. I contend Bush didn't. Here is another interesting link on the topic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jun12.html
The CIA's failure to pass on the details of what it knew helped keep the uranium-purchase story alive until shortly before the war in Iraq began, when the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector told the Security Council that the documents were forgeries.
Rice, in defending Bush's decision to claim that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Africa in his State of the Union speech on Jan. 28, said she was unaware that there were doubts about the information. "Maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency," Rice said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, "but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery."
I said earlier I think the intel could be flawed or misleading to the President.
Originally posted by SDW2001
What I am saying is that I believe Iraq had at least some of these weapons and most likely, the capacity to produce more. I think that for reasons I have now stated at least a million times.
Well, we now know for a fact that it did not have the cabability to produce more, at least not at any level even coming close to approaching what would be considered useful in regional conflicts, much less a threat to the US. Note that NOTHING has been found at any of the sites in the US's list, not even anything indicating a weapons program of any kind whatsoever. This not only means that anything that possibly did exist was on a tiny, tiny scale, but that ALL OF THE BUSH ADMIN INTEL WAS WRONG.
As for the fact that you 'believe Iraq had at least some of these weapons,' why is it so difficult for you to say what weapons you 'believe Iraq had.' If you can't name the weapons, then you have based your belief on hearsay and not on fact.
Then, the same people turn around and say that the only thing focused on at ALL was the WMD
Stop with this revisionist bullshit.
The reason we started the war when we did was because Iraq was portrayed as an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat.'
Read his lips:
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle3711.htm
No matter how hard you try, you can't change the past.
I said earlier I think the intel could be flawed or misleading to the President.
Sorry, but maybe you missed all of the now hundereds of intel analysts from the US and Britain that have been all over the media explaining in detail how the Bush and Blair admins pressured them to skew intel for political reasons. It was these administrations that skewed the info, not the Intel agencies. THis is crystal clear at this point and has been thoroughly detailed.
In conclusion, I ask for the 20th+ time: exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'?
Well, we now know for a fact that it did not have the cabability to produce more, at least not at any level even coming close to approaching what would be considered useful in regional conflicts, much less a threat to the US. Note that NOTHING has been found at any of the sites in the US's list, not even anything indicating a weapons program of any kind whatsoever. This not only means that anything that possibly did exist was on a tiny, tiny scale, but that ALL OF THE BUSH ADMIN INTEL WAS WRONG.
As for the fact that you 'believe Iraq had at least some of these weapons,' why is it so difficult for you to say what weapons you 'believe Iraq had.' If you can't name the weapons, then you have based your belief on heresay and not on fact.
1) The case is not closed on the "capacity" debate. You'd like to think so, but it isn't. I agree it becomes less likely with time.
2) "Bush Admin. Intel". That's deceptive. It's intel that was PRESENTED to them. It's not "Bush Admin. Intel".
Stop with this revisionist bullshit.
The reason we started the war when we did was because Iraq was portrayed as an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat.'
Read his lips:
http://www.informationclearinghouse...article3711.htm
No matter how hard you try, you can't change the past.
Really now, giant. You can't possibly be linking to "information clearing house" with a header: "Reviewing the lies". Please.
Bush DID reference other things. From the State of the Union itself:
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
As I said, he was even criticized for it. The Admin. was seen by people like you as "saying anything to go to war" Now, you're telling me they actually DID stick to an argument? Which is it? It doesn't matter anyway, because with that one example your entire argument that there were "no other reasons" is totally disproved. This was the highest profile Presidential speech of the year, given only two months before the war began. You lose.
Sorry, but maybe you missed all of the now hundereds of intel analysts from the US and Britain that have been all over the media explaining in detail how the Bush and Blair admins pressured them to skew intel for political reasons. It was these administrations that skewed the info, not the Intel agencies. THis is crystal clear at this point and has been thoroughly detailed.
Hundreds? What? Yes, then, giant: I MUST HAVE missed the "hundreds" of "intel analysts" (whatever the fvck that means) "all over the media" explaing "in detail" how they were pressured. Whatever. You are so full of shit on this one.
giant, this "question" of your is really getting tired. I have already said that there is no way a layperson can say exactly what they had and what they didn't. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a broad area, and includes chemical and biological weapons. Anthrax, Sarin, Mustard Gas, and Botulinium toxin are all things he had before, correct? This is by no means an inclusive or exclusive list.
Do you think these things aren't a threat? I'm not trying to avoid your question. I just don't understand how proving I personally don't know the exact type and configuration of the WMD proves Iraq doesn't have any. I have never claimed to know this. Do you know it? I just don't understand it's relevence to this discussion.
Iraq either has WMD or not. We've already found banned delivery systems (please, please giant...don't make me go look up the link...it was before the war). Any amount of any potent bio or chem weapons would qualify as "WMD", would it not? As far as how much would be a threat, I'm not the expert there. We'd have to rely on weapons experts for that.
In other words, regardless of the type of WMD it is, it constitutes an imminent threat.