|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 09/06/2002 : 04:18:33 [Permalink]
|
And I think what I asked you was what were the claims. So far, I've heard nothing other than some day maybe Iraq will develop weapons of mass destruction so we'd better go kill a couple more thousand Iraqi people and a few dozen U.S. soldiers unilaterally against international law.
quote:
Crossfire tonight had the exact same argument I had with Gorgo in another thread about 'proof' of a WMD program will be classified, so he will never get proof beyond the president saying so.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
 |
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2002 : 13:30:52 [Permalink]
|
There's that bandying about of 'law' again. International law is on our side. Maybe you forgot the UN resolutions that Saddam has not complied with.
Better, the war in '91 never actually ended. Saddam has not lived up to the conditions of his surrender. Therefore the cease fire is invalid. You can't wave a white flag then keep fighting, even if the fighting is resisting punishment through not adhering to the conditions of surrender.
The war didn't end, because Saddam has not adhered to his surrender conditions. By all laws of warfare, we have every right to continue a full scale war with Iraq until it does comply. Remember, the Iraqis signed off on the sanctions. It is part of their unconditional surrender.
Notice the UNCONDITIONAL part. Not until you get tired of sanctions. Not until you feel you've been punished enough.
UNCONDITIONAL surrender means just that. You comply with the document you signed or face renewed hostilities. Saddam is talking now as if he some say in whether UN Inspectors go back in. He does not. He signed that away to keep his throne in '91. What Iraq thinks is irrelevant, they lost and surrendered. Losers don't get to make the rules. We have negotiated with Iraq far in excess of our legal obligation to. Under the laws of war and the terms of surrender, we (basically anyone that fought in the original coalition since Saddam surrendered to all of them) has every right to restart hostilities for violations of the surrender.
quote:
So far, I've heard nothing other than some day maybe Iraq will develop weapons of mass destruction
--Not true. I have heard (from the same open sources you are limited to) no real argument that Saddam has and contines to develop WMD. The real argument is whether it is an 'imminant threat' or not. Even Daschle is clinging to that after meeting with Bush. No one with a more than a few brain cells doubts Iraq is pursuing WMD.
But as I've said, it matters not whether Iraq can launch a nuke now or in 10 years. All you've done is pussy out of dealing with it until someone else has to, and then has to face WMD for certain. Great fucking plan, Patton. Stick to checkers, let wars be fought by the pros.
I forgot, you already let others do the fighting while all you do is the talking.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2002 : 18:09:12 [Permalink]
|
Actually, no one has revealed any evidence at all there are weapons of mass destruction. At all. Certainly no way to deliver it beyond the borders of the country.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2002 : 23:39:05 [Permalink]
|
When Iraq let the inspectors check their burn (that was done outside the constraints applied the the UNSC) the inspectors said they did not find enough material to account for the arsenal expected by intelligence reports. I know, as far as you are concerned the reports turned into the UNSC by the inspection team doesn't count.
---
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart (1791) |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 03:24:28 [Permalink]
|
I'm sorry, Trish, I don't understand what this means. I don't remember hearing the term "burn" or what it means and what does it mean to say that they didn't find enough material to account for the arsenal expected by intelligence reports?
Keep in mind I'm not saying that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I'm saying I've not heard anyone claim that or bring any evidence to the table.
Bush is now saying that there are some murky photographs that look suspicious. I don't recall him saying that Iraq HAS any significant weapons of mass destruction or the ability to deliver them. There is ridiculous speculation that there are laboratories traveling on the backs of trucks, but no facts, no claim to know the facts.
Certainly there's probably a bottle of chemical or even biological weapons sitting somewhere but not much and no way to deliver it very far.
Iraq is not going to attack anyone unless they're attacked. Reason number one not to start a full-scale war.
Reason number two: It is illegal.
Reason number three: You have the ability to place inspectors in Iraq tomorrow if it is shown that those inspectors are not spies, and that the inspections will be tied to the sanctions.
You people keep talking about Security Council Resolutions. The inspections in Iraq are tied to disarmament not just in Iraq, but in the region. That means we need to start bombing Israel and the other countries in the area for not disarming.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 21:50:28 [Permalink]
|
Iraq conducted a burn to destroy their WMDs (specifically chemical weapons). This was originally to be done with weapons inspectors present. Iraq conducted the burn without the presense or knowledge of the weapons inspectors. In the reports they filed with the UN they stated that the amount of material burned could not account for all the material that Iraq was to have produced.
We discussed this in another thread. And as you have done before, once again you disregarded the information found from the UN website regarding the sanctions against Iraq.
Your information, is as always, more correct than anything that the UN and the inspectors have published. You select the evidence to support your position and ignore or attempt to discredit any information that shows otherwise. This is why I disappeared from the former discussions on this issue. And again why I will disappear from this one. There's no use in discussing this when you've the emotional investment in being correct on the issue.
---
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart (1791) |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 22:34:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually, no one has revealed any evidence at all there are weapons of mass destruction. At all.
--Not true, they just haven't revealed it TO YOU. Not even Tom Daschle argues there is no WMD program after he met with the president. Think just maybe there might be some information out there you aren't allowed to see?
quote:
Certainly no way to deliver it beyond the borders of the country
--Except for those SCUD missiles he was launching at Israel in '91. Most of which were mobile and never found. Or the arsenal of FROG-7 missiles that threaten Saudi, Kuwait or Jordan.
Or by selling either delivery means or pathogens to terrorist groups. That's called plausable deniability.
Or have his stash stolen. Since small, mobile labs are open to hijacking.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2002 : 02:29:26 [Permalink]
|
Again, I haven't even heard them claim this. What I have heard is that they are claiming that Iraq is reconstituting their ability to create weapons of mass destruction.
That's what I'm asking. Where is anyone even claiming that they have any substantial weapons of mass destruction or the ability to deliver them?
There are some murky sattelite photographs that show maybe a factory may have been rebuilt. That may be credible, but it is not claiming, from what I have heard, that they have any weapons of mass destruction.
quote:
--Not true, they just haven't revealed it TO YOU.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 09/08/2002 02:33:37 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2002 : 02:45:39 [Permalink]
|
Yes, Iraq played games. Yes, they have some chemical weapons. Listen to Scott Ritter, someone who led inspection teams into Iraq. He says that Iraq was qualitatively disarmed. You seem to misunderstand the inspection process. This wasn't just a case of taking Iraq's word for anything.
This is why they're saying the inspection process will take a while before they're sure again that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. It takes more than a lab on the back of a mule to make a nuclear bomb. That's why they're talking about this sattelite photo. If this turns out to be more than a pharmaceutical plant, then that means that Iraq is reconstituting its ability to create weapons of mass destruction.
Again, if they have any at this point, the only time they'll use them is if they're attacked.
Get some credible inspectors back in there. Get the U.S. off the case. Their only objective here is slaughter for power, as has been documented.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 09/08/2002 03:16:30 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2002 : 08:12:12 [Permalink]
|
An interview with ex-marine Scott Ritter, former weapons inspection team leader:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Former U.N.weapons inspector Scott Ritter spoke to CNN International's Fionnuala Sweeney about his own experience in Iraq, and his views on the possibility of a new attack by the United States.
SWEENEY: Scott Ritter, you are against any strike attack on Iraq for the reasons currently being given. Can you explain why?
RITTER: No one has substantiated the allegations that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction or is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. And of course that is the reason we have been given for going to war against Iraq -- because of the threat posed by these weapons. It has been nothing but rhetorically laced speculation, not hard facts, that have been presented by either the United States or Great Britain to back this up, and until they provide hard facts, there is no case for war.
SWEENEY: But didn't the United Nations present a report last year saying they believed there were weapons?
RITTER: No, the U.N. presented a report saying they could not account for
everything.
SWEENEY: But it is hard to account if you cannot get into the country.
RITTER: That's right. Then why did the United States pick up the phone in December 1998 and order the inspectors out -- let's remember Saddam Hussein didn't kick the inspectors out. The U.S. ordered the inspectors out 48 hours before they initiated Operation Desert Fox -- military action that didn't have the support of the U.N. Security Council and which used information gathered by the inspectors, to target Iraq.
SWEENEY: So you are saying that even before this administration came into power, that they were gunning for Iraq?
RITTER: Removing Saddam Hussein has been the policy of every American president since George Herbert Walker Bush.
SWEENEY: Well let's not go over that in the very short time we have. Let's ask what you believe the weapons of mass destruction situation is in Iraq at the moment.
RITTER: Well, look: As of December 1998 we had accounted for 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability -- "we" being the weapons inspectors. We destroyed all the factories, all of the means of production and we couldn't account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf-life of three years. To have weapons today, they would have had to rebuild the factories and start the process of producing these weapons since December 1998.
SWEENEY: And how do we know that hasn't been happening?
RITTER: We don't, but we cannot go to war on guesswork, hypothesis and speculation. We go to war on hardened fact. So Tony Blair says he has a dossier; present the dossier. George W. Bush and his administration say they know with certainty; show us how you know.
SWEENEY: How much access did you get to the weapons inspection sites?
RITTER: One-hundred percent. Every site we wanted to get to, we eventually got to. There was some obstruction, it wasn't pretty, but we got there.
SWEENEY: And after what period of time?
RITTER: It depends. A matter of hours sometimes, days sometimes, months, depending on the level of the international crisis. But remember we approached the weapons inspections the way that for instance a forensic crime scene investigator approaches a crime --forensically. And we always uncovered every lie the Iraqis told us. They didn't get away with anything.
SWEENEY: But when you say you always uncovered every lie that Iraq told you, it means that Iraq didn't fully cooperate by any stretch of the imagination.
RITTER: I have never said that Iraq was fully co-operating and when I make an assessment about Iraq's disarmament level, it has nothing to do with what Iraq has declared. I do not trust them, I take nothing they say at face value, it is based upon on the hard work of weapons inspectors who have verified that Iraq has been disarmed through their own independent sources.
SWEENEY: So you don't believe that Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction at the moment, or are you not sure?
RITTER: I would say it is a difficult case to make, based on my experience, and if you are going to make that case, back it up with fact.
SWEENEY: Is the current debate about the re-entry of weapons inspectors something you believe is directly linked to Washington's decision on whether or not to attack Iraq?
RITTER: I believe Washington D.C. is using the concept of inspections as a political foil to justify war. America doesn't want to inspectors to return. The best way to stop war is to get the inspectors back in. I
believe it should be the policy of the United Nations to get the inspectors
back in.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2002 : 15:02:13 [Permalink]
|
I don't recall having disregarded anything you posted in our discussions. The only thing I ignored was something that was totally irrelevant and something I don't even think you read.
Post something relevant and I'll pay attention to it.
You are correct, there was some dirty dealing on Iraq's side. As I've said before, you'd want your government to do the same in such a hostile overly-armed region. Not to excuse it, but that's what you'd want.
quote:
We discussed this in another thread. And as you have done before, once again you disregarded the information found from the UN website regarding the sanctions against Iraq.
Your information, is as always, more correct than anything that the UN and the inspectors have published. You select the evidence to support your position and ignore or attempt to discredit any information that shows otherwise. This is why I disappeared from the former discussions on this issue. And again why I will disappear from this one. There's no use in discussing this when you've the emotional investment in being correct on the issue.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 12:34:37 [Permalink]
|
this is going on in two different threads now. Pick and stick to it.
Scott Ritter is not a credible source of information. The argument has already been made in the Article on Iraq thread
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 12:40:12 [Permalink]
|
You pick. You tell me why Scott Ritter is not a credible source of information? He's a Gulf War veteran. That means, according to you, that he knows everything. 'splain.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 19:05:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You pick. You tell me why Scott Ritter is not a credible source of information? He's a Gulf War veteran. That means, according to you, that he knows everything. 'splain
--Uh yeah..... Find me a post where I claimed all vets were flawless. A good many GI's have gone bad. McVeigh, Burmeister, John Pollard.... All bad guys.
Ritter is not credible because he is now directly contradicting reports he submitted to the chief UN inspector. It's possible that a FOIA request could net copies of the actual documents Butler is referring to. Fetch.
His earlier opinion that Iraq does harbor a WMD program is the far more informed one of the two. He had first hand knowledge, as real time as you can get.
The new tune he is singing is a complete 180, not a minor deviation- which is always suspicious. We don't let murderers out of prison just because they suddenly find god and become harmless.
This new opinion is based on absolutely no factual information. He has not been in Iraq since 1998. He certainly isn't privy to US Intelligence. Therefore he has access to no better information than you have from CNN. He is speculating.
I give him absolute credibility for his opinions during the time he was a UN inspector in Iraq. And at that time he was saying there WAS an WMD program in Iraq and that Saddam had hampered the inspectors at every turn.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 20:32:51 [Permalink]
|
and really, all the UN inspectors being 'allowed' back in hoorah isn't even up to Saddam. He signed that away in '91. He has not allowed them since '98, a violation of his surrender agreement.
We have been YEARS negligent to enforce the UN resolutions. Clinton was simply not interested in the military (thanks for all those budget cuts, bill) and didn't want to spend money on military operations after the butt-fucking he took the minute he took office with Somalia. The same went with Osama and his crew of assholes. Billary ignored the threat and it bit us in the ass HARD. I personally don't need to learn that lesson twice, thank you.
Saddam has had 11 years since his spanking to rejoin the civilized world. Simple compliance with the documents HE SIGNED in surrender would have sufficed nicely. No where in history have I seen any nation or coalition (like the UN) allow a nation that had surrendered the infinite fucking patience we have shown Saddam already. 11 years! And yes, it is the civilians that truly suffer because of it. Because of one guy.
Well, I can think of one other example: The Treaty of Versaille. Wasn't enforced and the result was Hitler and WWII. yeah, great precedent. What was that about learning a lesson twice?
I saw on CNN today (Talk Back Live segment) where some dipshit started saying "it's all about oil."
Uh, did he not notice that gasoline in the US is cheaper than it is in fucking Kuwait! The US has about the lowest prices for petroleum products in the entire dinosaur burning world. Look at a pump. In Colorado there is a .40 tax on every gallon. Meaning the gas actually retails for UNDER A DOLLAR a gallon. Less than the Mountain Dew I bought. That's why we can have big ass 4X4's and 1971 HemiCuda's. (the only year with dual headlights) fuckin' sweeeeeeet!
Just what would we be going to war over oil for? WTFO? Dumbass gets his 15 seconds of fame today on TBL.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
