No WMDs in Iraq

[plenderj]

Interesting...
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...978463,00.html

[honeybee]

Originally posted by plenderj
Interesting...
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...978463,00.html

I find it more shameful than interesting.

.

[KayJay]

No surprises at all. Mr. Blix is no fool. Nor is the UN inept. And it takes "Mature Democracies" over a year and few thousands dead and a nation ransacked, to realize that.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by KayJay
No surprises at all. Mr. Blix is no fool. Nor is the UN inept. And it takes "Mature Democracies" over a year and few thousands dead and a nation ransacked, to realize that.

Mature? Democracies? I don't understand how these nations could be different from the Nazi Germany, or Iraq for that matter. Only the tools to dictate are different. In these nations instead of guns, they rule by the media and spin. The core remains the same.

All dictatorships are based on a single fact : hiding facts. The conventional methods were to use force, but today's politicians have managed to find far better and far effective means of doing it. Anyone wants to compare these spin doctors with Gobells?

.

[DeadEyes]

Notice that he resigned rather than issuing a report stating there were no weapons. So someone else will be appointed and they won't find anything either, however they won't have to issue a report until after the elections. Or maybe they'll just resign as well

[Xanith]

Originally posted by honeybee
Mature? Democracies? I don't understand how these nations could be different from the Nazi Germany, or Iraq for that matter. Only the tools to dictate are different. In these nations instead of guns, they rule by the media and spin. The core remains the same.

All dictatorships are based on a single fact : hiding facts. The conventional methods were to use force, but today's politicians have managed to find far better and far effective means of doing it. Anyone wants to compare these spin doctors with Gobells?

.

How are you able to complain so much about the US and its policies if they are hiding facts? If they were hidden you wouldn’t know about them to complain about them now would you.

If you are so interested in facts why not read the UN Resolutions passed against Iraq that the whole world agreed too? They clearly state that Iraq was still in violation of the cease-fire agreement of 1991 and that “serious consequences” would follow if Iraq did not come into compliance. The only argument was that the US/UK wanted the UN to actually back one of their resolutions and deal with the problem in Iraq after 12 long years of doing nothing, while other nations like France, Germany, and Russia didn’t want to remove Saddam due to back ally oil and weapons deals with him. Who’s really in the wrong here? The US/UK wanting to deal with a brutal dictator who continued to violate a cease-fire agreement or the countries that made back ally deals to prop-up one of the world’s worst dictators?

X

[Memnoch1207]

You guys make me laugh. ***** and complain all you want. You have no say in the matter what so ever.

I find it funny that back in the mid 90's when Milosovich and Arkan were slaughtering thousands of Bosnians, while the UN just sat idly by while their own peacekeepers were being kidnapped and handcuffed to buildings and bridges as human shields, everyone was calling for the US to take action, because the UN wouldn't.

Now everyone wants to cry foul, when the US steps in to stop a cruel murdering dictator, while, once again the UN just sat on its hands, reprimanding Saddam for the 17th time for not complying with their resolutions.

I could care less if they ever find WMD's (chances are they were shipped to Syria a long time ago). Saddam needed to be removed and the world is a better place because of it.

So complain all you want that the US has its own agenda and we're a terrible country, that's no better than hitler or stalin or any other idiot you try to compare us with. The fact is the world is a better, safer place because of the US's willingness to get involved and take a stand in world events.

[Wally Pipp]

I'll remind you of this when another tower building collapses

[KayJay]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
You guys make me laugh. ***** and complain all you want. You have no say in the matter what so ever.

I find it funny that back in the mid 90's when Milosovich and Arkan were slaughtering thousands of Bosnians, while the UN just sat idly by while their own peacekeepers were being kidnapped and handcuffed to buildings and bridges as human shields, everyone was calling for the US to take action, because the UN wouldn't.

Now everyone wants to cry foul, when the US steps in to stop a cruel murdering dictator, while, once again the UN just sat on its hands, reprimanding Saddam for the 17th time for not complying with their resolutions.

I could care less if they ever find WMD's (chances are they were shipped to Syria a long time ago). Saddam needed to be removed and the world is a better place because of it.

So complain all you want that the US has its own agenda and we're a terrible country, that's no better than hitler or stalin or any other idiot you try to compare us with. The fact is the world is a better, safer place because of the US's willingness to get involved and take a stand in world events.

'World". Could you please provide me with your world map. I really am interested in a world that is safe/safer. Last I saw, my map had Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, on it. Not safe places. By any standards. Maybe, its changed to include the Moon and the Mars and exclude the above. Maybe.

[OrdinaryGuy]

Originally posted by KayJay
'World". Could you please provide me with your world map. I really am interested in a world that is safe/safer. Last I saw, my map had Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, on it. Not safe places. By any standards. Maybe, its changed to include the Moon and the Mars and exclude the above. Maybe.

Did you ever realize that you sound like a complete moron at times? You've made no point.

Saddam did posses WMD, he did murder his people (and in some cases bury them alive), he did use chemical weapons and he did aspire to obtain nuclear weapons. These are FACTS. If the UN lifted sanctions, I'm pretty sure the first thing he would have done is restart his WMD programs.

[KayJay]

Only at times? That apart,

My Q. remains unanswered. Is the "world" a safer place? No. It just is as bad as it was in Nov '02. Iraq is far more dangerous today than 5 years ago. Not as dangerous as it was 20 years ago, sure. Today, not only are Iraqis killed, but foreigners are killed as well.

Also, did you hear about the recent "Human Rights Watch" report? Some more morons for you to laugh at. Enjoy.

[yrwyddfa]

How are you able to complain so much about the US and its policies if they are hiding facts? If they were hidden you wouldn’t know about them to complain about them now would you.

Misdirection and a total non-sequitor. 'Democracy' is based, by definition, on the principles of accountability for the govt's actions; of which the UK, at least, is found very wanting

If you are so interested in facts why not read the UN Resolutions passed against Iraq that the whole world agreed too? They clearly state that Iraq was still in violation of the cease-fire agreement of 1991 and that “serious consequences” would follow if Iraq did not come into compliance.

The FACT of the matter is that Blair took the UK to war because of a presumed 45 minute weapon deployment capability; he did not state any UN resolution; he did not state regime change. He told the British parliament that we had to 'initiate a preemptive strike in order to make the world a safer place because of a 45 minute deployment capability' We now know he lied.

How many people did Saddam kill in those 12 years? Yet the US, and UK (and indeed most of the other states of the world) stood back a wrote more bits of paper. It's a bit rich to rely on those bits of paper, now; and definately a lot ironic. Even to state that 'We went in to make the world a safer place, so we're right' Well you didn't make it safer for the thousands of Iraqis who died in those 12 years did you? I have say that you speak very clearly for someone sitting down . . .

Now everyone wants to cry foul, when the US steps in to stop a cruel murdering dictator, while, once again the UN just sat on its hands, reprimanding Saddam for the 17th time for not complying with their resolutions.

If this the basis of principle then why is the US now not at war with many other 'murdering dictators?' You cannot justify this!!

[OrdinaryGuy]

Originally posted by KayJay
Only at times? That apart,

My Q. remains unanswered. Is the "world" a safer place? No. It just is as bad as it was in Nov '02. Iraq is far more dangerous today than 5 years ago. Not as dangerous as it was 20 years ago, sure. Today, not only are Iraqis killed, but foreigners are killed as well.

Also, did you hear about the recent "Human Rights Watch" report? Some more morons for you to laugh at. Enjoy.

Please educate me how Iraq has got more dangerous? Yes there is some instability because some rogue elements what to prevent democracy from taking shape. But I'm pretty sure Iraq will become a secure and prosperious country within the next 5 to 10 years. It takes time.

You don't make any sense again. What's that report have to do with WMD?

[OrdinaryGuy]

If Saddam was allowed to rule on for another 20 years and UN sanctions were lifted, what do you think would have been the outcome?

[KayJay]

Please educate me how Iraq has got more dangerous? Yes there is some instability because some rogue elements what to prevent democracy from taking shape. But I'm pretty sure Iraq will become a secure and prosperious country within the next 5 to 10 years. It takes time.

Replace "rouge elements" with "Saddam Hussein" and put back today's calender 2 years back. Same as today? The US of A , oops! sorry!, the Coalition is not making any progress, is it? Instead of Saddam trying to keep the lids on the Shias, it is the Coalition doing it now.

You don't make any sense again. What's that report have to do with WMD?

Not WMD. Its the "Humanitarian Intervention" justification the US of A was propounding. "There was no need for Humanitarian Intervention. The war on those grounds was not justified".

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...4/s1032488.htm

If Saddam was allowed to rule on for another 20 years and UN sanctions were lifted, what do you think would have been the outcome?

No one is "allowed" to rule by an external agency, for the sheer fact that such "allowance" is not a criterion for domestic rule. Anyways, he would have been replaced, internally. Uday/Qusay, maybe. Shia revolt, more likely. Saddam doing a Qaddafi, even more likely. Of course, we'll never know now.

[Xanith]

Misdirection and a total non-sequitor. 'Democracy' is based, by definition, on the principles of accountability for the govt's actions; of which the UK, at least, is found very wanting

The US is now spending billons of its own dollars to rebuild Iraq, keep its citizens safe, and insuring free elections, how is that not being accountable?

The FACT of the matter is that Blair took the UK to war because of a presumed 45 minute weapon deployment capability; he did not state any UN resolution; he did not state regime change. He told the British parliament that we had to 'initiate a preemptive strike in order to make the world a safer place because of a 45 minute deployment capability' We now know he lied.

Intelligence coming out of Iraq from countries like the US, UK, France, and the UN had stated for over 12 years that Iraq was still in violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire by possessing WMD. Read the UN Resolutions yourself and how they are worded. And you are wrong about Blair not stating any UN Resolutions I clearly remember him doing so as one of the reasons for going into Iraq, I believe it was Resolution 687 (the cease-fire resolution). You must have selective hearing.

As far as Blair lying I believe that at worse he was fed faulty intelligence. Even the UN believed Iraq had WMD as stated in all of the UN Resolutions passed against Iraq. This was backed up by intelligence from multiple nations like the US, France, and the UK. If you honestly believe Blair lied can you tell me what would be the political advantage to do so when he knew that the truth would come out eventually?

How many people did Saddam kill in those 12 years? Yet the US, and UK (and indeed most of the other states of the world) stood back a wrote more bits of paper. It's a bit rich to rely on those bits of paper, now; and definately a lot ironic. Even to state that 'We went in to make the world a safer place, so we're right' Well you didn't make it safer for the thousands of Iraqis who died in those 12 years did you? I have say that you speak very clearly for someone sitting down . . .

Remember this is the same UN who sat and watched Bosnia and its ethnic cleansing as well as Rwanda happen all the while doing nothing, and you expected them to act any different in Iraq? That’s laughable. The UN should have handled Iraq sooner but failed miserably as usual so it was up to the US/UK to actually take care of the problem…again. Sounds like your anger should be directed at the UN for their inaction in the 12 years after the Gulf War in 1991 not the US or UK. Also now you should be happy that Saddam will never be able to fill another mass grave again thanks to the UK/UK and their coalition of 50 other nations.

If this the basis of principle then why is the US now not at war with many other 'murdering dictators?' You cannot justify this!!

How many other murdering dictators around the world have 17+ UN resolutions passed against them that state they are in non-compliance with a cease-fire agreement because they invaded their neighbors?

X

[Xanith]

Not WMD. Its the "Humanitarian Intervention" justification the US of A was propounding. "There was no need for Humanitarian Intervention. The war on those grounds was not justified".

This is the same type of guy that allowed Hitler to build up his power in the 1930's. How nice of him to decide that a million people dead is not enough for military intervention. Wonder how many dead he would consider would warrant an invasion.

X

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
This is the same type of guy that allowed Hitler to build up his power in the 1930's. How nice of him to decide that a million people dead is not enough for military intervention. Wonder how many dead he would consider would warrant an invasion.

X

I think Britain and France chose to Ignore Hitler's advances in the beginning. It's only when their own nations were threatened, they decided to start a war.




Using the logic being used to justify the Iraq invasion, tomorrow the US could be attacked for lowering the H1B visa limits, or the UK could be attacked over the top up fees. The fact remains that the US and the UK based their decision to go to war over an immediate threat of WMD use by Iraq, the fact remains that there are no WMDs to be found in Iraq, and therefore the fact emerges that both these governments are nothing but liars trying to safeguard their own political futures.

If the US is so much interested in implementing the UN resolutions, what happened to Israel's non-compliance? Nope, sir, Israel is a "buddy", and you don't invade a buddy, whether the government is good or not, whether it throws humanitarian concepts to the wind by erecting barriers and arbitrarily and indiscriminately shooting Palestinians. What happens to nations like Pakistan spreading the nuclear technology among the "rogue" nations? They are buddies too, even though their top nuclear scientists have been found and now charged with the nuclear proliferations. These heavily guarded people went on personal trips abroad and shared their knowledge, the Pakistan government is absolutely innocent

How cute. I think "responsibility" is the most important factor here, which has been missing from both the US and the UK governments. David Kelly, then David Kay and now Colin Powell himself have acknowledged there may be no WMDs in Iraq. Of coruse the government realized this much earlier, so they started hyping up the humanitarian aspect of it. So pathetically political.

Personally I care a hoot for the US policies. They are nothing short of stupid acts by a stupid person. Barricading the whole nation against almost the entire world, trying to divide the world into "us" and "them" and in general taking irresponsible action to intervene in the workings of other nations. I would say the prophecy of the Muslims and the Christians fighting each other and extinguishing each other is not too far if things continue this way.

.

[Nightwalker83]

I think Britain and France chose to Ignore Hitler's advances in the beginning. It's only when their own nations were threatened, they decided to start a war.

Not much has changed now.

[yrwyddfa]

This is the same type of guy that allowed Hitler to build up his power in the 1930's. How nice of him to decide that a million people dead is not enough for military intervention. Wonder how many dead he would consider would warrant an invasion

Rather like Mugabwe; but I see no invasion attempts there.

We've been before X; yet you still cannot explain to me why the sanctions against Iraq are so sooo important, yet the non-compliance of Israel is OK.

Explain this to me, and you might have a point. Unfortunately, I know you will be unable to.

Intelligence coming out of Iraq from countries like the US, UK, France, and the UN had stated for over 12 years that Iraq was still in violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire by possessing WMD

WRONG. Plainly WRONG. This weapons meantioned in UN resolutions were not down to intelligence, they were down to independent weapons inspector's of which one has resigned saying he was wrong.

How many other murdering dictators around the world have 17+ UN resolutions passed against them that state they are in non-compliance with a cease-fire agreement because they invaded their neighbors?

Err, Israel and it has a least 25 outstanding resolutions against it (but why don't you gloss over that point as well)

[Wally Pipp]

cynical, isn't it ?

[yrwyddfa]

Not cynical; just sick and tired if inept individuals who have a rather conceited view of their own countries actions; who clearly cannot see that those actions, whilst suiting particular western sensibilities, are opposed by the other 5 billion people who live on the planet.

If this is a democracy then surely the other 5 billion are right? WRONG! Not according to many people who post here . . .

Got to admit; I've had enough

[Wally Pipp]

Not of you, of that X buffoon and his cohorts.

[yrwyddfa]

LOL

[Wally Pipp]

Certainly when you realise that they are meddling with Russian state affairs again (and Georgian). And that none of them will remember the Rwandese massacre 10 years ago come this april.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
Please educate me how Iraq has got more dangerous? Yes there is some instability because some rogue elements what to prevent democracy from taking shape. But I'm pretty sure Iraq will become a secure and prosperious country within the next 5 to 10 years. It takes time.

You don't make any sense again. What's that report have to do with WMD?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3408125.stm


This has been going on almost all the time since the US occupied Iraq. I think the right to live (read: stay alive in one piece) should be the most fundamental right for every individual, and the US occupation of Iraq is denying this right to the common Iraqi people.

.

[OberCanober]

Who said getting a better life was going to be easy?

[honeybee]

Originally posted by OberCanober
Who said getting a better life was going to be easy?

Yep, you are right. Dead people have no worries. Kill yourself to get a better life.













What a moron....

.

[KayJay]

Listen and listen hard, I've said it before, I'm saying it now and I'll say it again.

Punishing Saddam Hussein for getting away with murder by letting George W Bush get away with breaking and entering is unacceptable Full Stop.

Clear?

[Xanith]

We've been before X; yet you still cannot explain to me why the sanctions against Iraq are so sooo important, yet the non-compliance of Israel is OK.

I never said the non-compliance of Israel was “OK” you just assumed it. To me its just another reason why the UN is so worthless and cant enforce its own resolutions.

WRONG. Plainly WRONG. This weapons meantioned in UN resolutions were not down to intelligence, they were down to independent weapons inspector's of which one has resigned saying he was wrong.

The weapons mentioned where known to exist after the first Gulf War and no documentation was ever provided for their destruction. However my point is if there was such an assurance of Iraq having no WMD before the latest Gulf War why were inspections necessary? If there were no WMD why did Saddam hamper these inspections? Why did the world agree that Iraq was still in non-compliance (read Resolution 1441)?

Err, Israel and it has a least 25 outstanding resolutions against it (but why don't you gloss over that point as well)

It was never brought up in this thread. However Ill address it now that you have brought it up. I don’t agree with Israel’s non-compliance with UN Resolutions and feel something should be done to try to bring them into compliance. That is a whole different subject however that can be discussed at length in another thread.

X

[Xanith]

Originally posted by KayJay
Listen and listen hard, I've said it before, I'm saying it now and I'll say it again.

Punishing Saddam Hussein for getting away with murder by letting George W Bush get away with breaking and entering is unacceptable Full Stop.

Clear?

Saddam didn’t comply with a cease-fire...hence resumption of hostilities. That clear? Full Stop.

X

[Xanith]

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Not of you, of that X buffoon and his cohorts.

X

[Memnoch1207]

You think innocent Iraqis weren't dying when Saddam was in power???

The only reason you are hearing about innocent Iraqis dying now, is because there is some sense of democracy and free media in the country.

For any country to earn their freedom (innocent) lives are always lost. I would rather die fighting for my freedom, than die a slave to a dictatorial government. And as much as we hate to see innocent people killed, that is a fact of life.

It is no different than any other conflict in history. Innocent people will always die.

[Memnoch1207]

Originally posted by KayJay
'World". Could you please provide me with your world map. I really am interested in a world that is safe/safer. Last I saw, my map had Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, on it. Not safe places. By any standards. Maybe, its changed to include the Moon and the Mars and exclude the above. Maybe.

The same "World" you live in. If Saddam had been allowed to stay in power, he would have gained access to nuclear weapons and held the "WHOLE WORLD" hostage to his demands. Unfortunately, only the US, UK and Austraila understood this. So yes, the "WHOLE WORLD" is a safer place without Saddam.

The same way the "WORLD" was a safer place after Hitler and Stalin were gone.

It may not be safe by your standards, and probably never will be until we can all hold hands, have a coke and a smile and kiss little bunnies, but it is a safer world for everyone else.

[Wally Pipp]

so when will you get rid of Saudi Arabia or say, Pakistan ?

[Memnoch1207]

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
so when will you get rid of Saudi Arabia or say, Pakistan ?

What does this have to do with the current conversation? or my previous post?

[Wally Pipp]

how short of memory we are ... safety perhaps ? But no, never mind. They're our friends right ?

And they call me hypocritical ...

[Xanith]

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
how short of memory we are ... safety perhaps ? But no, never mind. They're our friends right ?

And they call me hypocritical ...

There is more than one way to change a nation. The world is not as simple as you make it out to be so you cannot apply a blanket solution (i.e. invasion) to every situation. Even now Saudi Arabia is giving more rights to its people including woman and actually talking about free elections all without any kind of invasion. Even Libya is voluntarily giving up its WMD programs with Iran allowing UN inspections of their nuclear facilities, again all without invasion. Hmmmm wonder if that little Iraq invasion is actually making the Middle East safer by persuading other nations that maybe pursuing WMD programs is not the way. All without invasion, imagine that

X

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
There is more than one way to change a nation. The world is not as simple as you make it out to be so you cannot apply a blanket solution (i.e. invasion) to every situation. Even now Saudi Arabia is giving more rights to its people including woman and actually talking about free elections all without any kind of invasion. Even Libya is voluntarily giving up its WMD programs with Iran allowing UN inspections of their nuclear facilities, again all without invasion. Hmmmm wonder if that little Iraq invasion is actually making the Middle East safer by persuading other nations that maybe pursuing WMD programs is not the way. All without invasion, imagine that

X

Ouch! That's so funny (read: Phony)

Afghanistan was invaded under the pretext of destroying Al Qaeda. Your stupid government didn't probably realize the Al Qaeda could spread to other countries too.

Pakistan is being sheltered because the US expects it to help in the capture of bin Laden.

Iran is not being invaded because probably the US are overstretched in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and in Iraq they are losing men on a regular basis, which Mr. Bush can't afford in the election year. So no new frontiers right now.

Decocracy is not the best form of government, and the US has no right telling other nations what kind of government they should have. It should strictly worry about its own problems.




Yeah, and did I forget to say that more than half of these problems (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq etc) are a result of the selfish US foreign policies of the past?

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
You think innocent Iraqis weren't dying when Saddam was in power???

The only reason you are hearing about innocent Iraqis dying now, is because there is some sense of democracy and free media in the country.

For any country to earn their freedom (innocent) lives are always lost. I would rather die fighting for my freedom, than die a slave to a dictatorial government. And as much as we hate to see innocent people killed, that is a fact of life.

It is no different than any other conflict in history. Innocent people will always die.

I surely didn't hear any Iraqi complain about Saddam's governance, or Iraqies dying by the day under Saddam's rule. He may have tortured those who opposed his rule. But in the US rule, even those Iraqis who couldn't care less about the form or the party of governance are dying. And by the day. Maybe the reason is the US didn't want the UN to get involved from the beginning so it could claim all the booty, so instead of it appearing as an enforcement of the UN resolutions, it becomes the US obsession to command oil and generate more wealth for itself by awarding rebuilding contracts. I don't understand from whose head this idea of rebuilding contracts has emerged. I would say it was the obligation of the US to restore Iraq to its pre-invasion state and bear all the costs involved for that, and then just get their butts out.

.