Become a part of the TranceAddict community!Frequently Asked Questions - Please read this if you haven'tSearch the forums
TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Iraq to use Chemical WMD in war...u morons
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 »   Last Thread   Next Thread
Share
Author
Thread    Post A Reply
Mental Exodus
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Toronto, Can
Be Cool! OK I AM FOR A GOV CHANGE BUT GEEZ THIS LAYS IT DOWN

When we goto war the prez says why we are going. PEOPLE BELIVE HIM AND SAY OH YA WMD AND TERRORIST BLAH BLAH BLAH. This article MOVED me and I got a fealing of shit in my mouth like never before.(I AM SORTA PRO WAR AND BUY INTO GOV CHANGE ECT and felt sorta stupid) Perhaps im crazy and this is all lies but this does make sense and it is sited from news papers. SO TEISTO14 IF YOUR STILL HERE TAKE A LOOK AND ASK YOUR SELF IF WMD/terrorists are really why we are carpet bombing iraq.

The twenty lies of George W. Bush
By Patrick Martin
20 March 2003

Monday night’s 15-minute speech by President Bush, setting a 48-hour deadline for war against Iraq, went beyond the usual distortions, half-truths, and appeals to fear and backwardness to include a remarkable number of barefaced, easily refuted lies.

The enormous scale of the lying suggests two political conclusions: the Bush administration is going to war against Iraq with utter contempt for democracy and public opinion, and its war propaganda counts heavily on the support of the American media, which not only fails to challenge the lies, but repeats and reinforces them endlessly.

Without attempting to be exhaustive, it is worthwhile listing some of the most important lies and contrasting Bush’s assertions with the public record. All of the false statements listed below are directly quoted from the verbatim transcript of Bush’s remarks published on the Internet.

Lie No. 1: “My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.”

The decision for war with Iraq was made long ago, the intervening time having been spent in an attempt to create the political climate in which US troops could be deployed for an attack. According to press reports, most recently March 16 in the Baltimore Sun, at one of the first National Security Council meetings of his presidency, months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Bush expressed his determination to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his willingness to commit US ground troops to an attack on Iraq for that purpose. All that was required was the appropriate pretext—supplied by September 11, 2001.

Lie No. 2: “For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war.”

The US-led United Nations regime of sanctions against Iraq, combined with “no-fly” zones and provocative weapons inspections, is one of brutal oppression. The deliberate withholding of food, medical supplies and other vital necessities is responsible for the death of more than a million Iraqis, half of them children. Two UN officials who headed the oil-for-food program resigned in protest over the conditions created in Iraq by the sanctions. The CIA used the inspectors as a front, infiltrating agents into UNSCOM, the original inspections program. The CIA’s aim was to spy on Iraq’s top officials and target Saddam Hussein for assassination.

Lie No. 3: “The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament...”

Iraq has never “defied” a Security Council resolution since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. It has generally cooperated with the dictates of the UN body, although frequently under protest or with reservations, because many of the resolutions involve gross violations of Iraqi sovereignty. From 1991 to 1998, UN inspectors supervised the destruction of the vast bulk of the chemical and biological weapons, as well as delivery systems, which Iraq accumulated (with the assistance of the US) during the Iran-Iraq war, and they also destroyed all of Iraq’s facilities for making new weapons.

Lie No. 4: “Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.”

According to the Washington Post of March 16, referring to the 1991-1998 inspection period: “[U]nder UN supervision, Iraq destroyed 817 of 819 proscribed medium-range missiles, 14 launchers, 9 trailers and 56 fixed missile-launch sites. It also destroyed 73 of 75 chemical or biological warheads and 163 warheads for conventional explosives. UN inspectors also supervised destruction of 88,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, more than 600 tons of weaponized and bulk chemical weapons agents, 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals and 980 pieces of equipment considered key to production of such weapons.”

Lie No. 5: “The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

The Washington Post article cited above noted that CIA officials were concerned “about whether administration officials have exaggerated intelligence in a desire to convince the American public and foreign governments that Iraq is violating United Nations prohibitions against chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and long-range missile systems.” The article quoted “a senior intelligence analyst” who said the inspectors could not locate weapons caches “because there may not be much of a stockpile.”

Former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook, who resigned from the Blair government Monday in protest over the decision to go to war without UN authorization, declared, “Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term.” Even if Iraq is concealing some remnants of its 1980s arsenal, these would hardly deserve Bush’s lurid description, since they are primitive and relatively ineffective. “Some of the most lethal weapons ever devised” are those being unleashed by the United States on Iraq: cruise missiles, smart bombs, fuel-air explosives, the 10,000-pound “daisy-cutter” bomb, the 20,000-pound MOAB just tested in Florida. In addition, the US has explicitly refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons.

Lie No. 6: “[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda.”

No one, not even US government, seriously believes there is a significant connection between the Islamic fundamentalists and the secular nationalist Ba’athist regime in Iraq, which have been mortal enemies for decades. The continued assertion of an Al Qaeda-Iraq alliance is a desperate attempt to link Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks.

It also serves to cover up the responsibility of American imperialism for sponsoring Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. The forces that now comprise Al Qaeda were largely recruited, trained, armed and set in motion by the CIA itself, as part of a long-term policy of using Islamic fundamentalists as a weapon against left-wing movements in the Muslim countries. This policy was pursued from the 1950s and was escalated prior to and during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, which ended in 1989. Osama bin Laden himself was part of the CIA-backed mujaheddin forces in Afghanistan before he turned against Washington in the 1990s.

Lie No. 7: “America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully.”

The Bush administration went to the United Nations because it wanted UN sanction for military action and it wanted UN member states to cough up funds for postwar operations, along the lines of its financial shakedown operation for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Bush’s most hawkish advisors, such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney, initially opposed going to the UN because they did not want diplomacy to slow down the drive to war. They only agreed after Secretary of State Colin Powell argued that the pace of the US military buildup in the Persian Gulf gave enough time to get the UN to rubber-stamp the war.

Lie No. 8: “These governments [the Security Council majority] share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it.”

This is belied by virtually every statement on Iraq issued by the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany and other countries opposed to military action, which have repeatedly declared that they see no imminent threat from Iraq. Bush brands his opponents on the Security Council as cowards, as though they were afraid to take action against Saddam Hussein. These countries were, in fact, increasingly alarmed—by the United States, not Iraq. Insofar as they summoned up resolve, to the shock of the Bush administration, it was to deny UN support for the war that Washington had already decided to wage.

Lie No. 9: “Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world.”

Only three nations are contributing military forces to the war: 250,000 from the US, 40,000 from Britain, and 2,000 from Australia. The other members of the “broad coalition” are those which have been bribed or browbeaten to allow the US to fly over their countries to bomb Iraq, to station troops, ships or warplanes on their territory, or provide technical assistance or other material aid to the war. None will do any fighting. All are acting against the expressed desire of their own population.

Lie No. 10: “The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.”

Bush defines the UN body’s responsibility as serving as a rubber stamp for whatever action the United States government demands. In relation to the UN, however, the United States does have definite responsibilities, including refraining from waging war without Security Council authorization, except in the case of immediate self-defense. Under Article 42 of the UN Charter, it is for the Security Council, not the US or Britain, to decide how Security Council resolutions such as 1441 are to be enforced. The US decision to “enforce” its interpretation of 1441 regardless of the will of the Security Council is a violation of international law.

Lie No. 11: “If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.”



The widely reported US military strategy is to conduct an aerial bombardment of Iraq so devastating that it will “shock and awe” the Iraqi people and compel the Iraqi armed forces to surrender en masse. According to one press preview, US and British forces “plan to launch the deadliest first night of air strikes on a single country in the history of air power. Hundreds of targets in every region of Iraq will be hit simultaneously.” Estimates of likely Iraqi civilian casualties from the immediate impact of bombs and missiles range from thousands to hundreds of thousands, and even higher when the long-term effects are included.

Lie No. 12: “As our coalition takes their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need.”

This is particularly cynical, since the immediate consequence of Bush’s 48-hour ultimatum was the withdrawal of all UN humanitarian aid workers and the shutdown of the oil-for-food program, which underwrites the feeding of 60 percent of Iraq’s population. As for medicine, the US has systematically deprived the Iraqi people of needed medicine for the past 12 years, insisting that even the most basic medical supplies, like antibiotics and syringes, be banned as “dual-use” items that could be used in a program of biological warfare.

Lie No. 13: “We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.”

The goal of the Bush administration is to install a US puppet regime in Baghdad, initially taking the form of an American military dictatorship. It is no exaggeration to say that the US government has been the leading promoter of dictatorships around the world, from Pinochet of Chile to Suharto of Indonesia to Saddam Hussein himself, who, according to one recent report, got his political start as an anti-communist hit-man working in a CIA-backed plot to assassinate Iraq’s left-nationalist President Qasem in 1959.

A classified State Department report described by the Los Angeles Times of March 14 not only concluded that a democratic Iraq was unlikely to arise from the devastation of war, it suggested that this was not even desirable from the standpoint of American interests, because “anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States.”

Lie No. 14: “Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and every measure will be taken to win it.”

This combines a lie and a brutal truth. The Bush administration has taken every possible measure to insure that war takes place, viewing the resumption of UN weapons inspections with barely disguised hostility and directing its venom against those countries that have suggested a diplomatic settlement with Iraq is achievable. In prosecuting the war, the Bush administration is indeed prepared to use “every measure,” up to an including nuclear weapons, in order to win it.

Lie No. 15: “War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice.”

There will be colossal sacrifices for the Iraqi people, and sacrifices in blood and economic well-being for the American people as well. But for Bush’s real constituency, the wealthiest layer at the top of American society, there will be no sacrifices at all. Instead, the administration is seeking a tax cut package of over $700 billion, including the abolition of taxation on corporate dividends. Major US corporations are in line to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure shattered by the coming US assault. These include the oil construction firm Halliburton, which Vice President Cheney headed prior to joining the Bush administration, and which continues to include Cheney on its payroll.

Lie No. 16: “[T]he only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so.”

Every aggressor claims to deplore the suffering of war and seeks to blame the victim for resisting, and thus prolonging the agony. Bush is no different. His hypocritical statements of “concern” for the Iraqi people cannot disguise the fact that, as many administration apologists freely admit, this is “a war of choice”—deliberately sought by the US government to pursue its strategic agenda in the Middle East.

Lie No. 17: “The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.”

No one, even in the American military-intelligence complex, seriously believes this. US counter-terrorism officials have repeatedly said that a US conquest and occupation of Iraq, by killing untold thousands of Arabs and Muslims and inflaming public opinion in the Arab world and beyond, will spark more terrorism, not less.

Lie No. 18: “We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over.”

This is belied by the record of the past twelve years, which has seen a steady decline in Iraqi military power. Saddam Hussein has never been a threat to any “free nation,” if that term has any meaning, only to the reactionary oil sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf and to neighboring Iran, all ruled by regimes that are as repressive as his.

Lie No. 19: “As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country.”

The demands of the world were expressed by the millions who marched in cities throughout the world on February 15 and March 15 to oppose a unilateral US attack on Iraq. Bush seeks to have it both ways—claiming to enforce previous Security Council resolutions against Iraq (“the just demands of the world”), while flagrantly defying the will of the majority of the Security Council, the majority of the world’s governments, and the vast majority of the world’s people.

Lie No. 20: “Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty... The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region.”

For “the Iraqi people,” substitute “the Egyptian people,” “the people of the Arabian peninsula,” “the Pakistani people” or those of other US-backed dictatorships, not to mention the Palestinians who live under a brutal Israeli occupation that is supported by Washington. Does the US government believe that any of them are “deserving and capable of human liberty?” When the parliament of Turkey, under the pressure of popular opposition, voted to bar the US from using Turkish territory to invade Iraq, the Bush administration appealed to the Turkish military to pressure the government into overturning this democratic decision.


___________________
Todays youth have desacrated music with the popification of all generes. FOR SHAME.

MUSIC GURU - 2002.

Old Post Mar-26-2003 02:21  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for Mental Exodus Click here to Send Mental Exodus a Private Message Visit Mental Exodus's homepage! Add Mental Exodus to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Az
took me all the way back



Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Walking to John O'Groats for some spastics

quote:
Originally posted by Cyrus King



Grow up Tiesto14....youre all alone... nobody take syou seriously becuase you epitmoize the very meaning of dumb ignorant patriotic American...

and he was banned, for the second time, for being just that

Old Post Mar-26-2003 10:30 
Click Here to See the Profile for Az Click here to Send Az a Private Message Add Az to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Gladius
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Antwerp
Thumbs up wow

Mental Exodus, your post must be the best i've ever read =).


___________________

listening to music with your heart... pure energy... you can feel . in the air . on your skin . in your soul

Old Post Mar-26-2003 15:41  Belgium
Click Here to See the Profile for Gladius Click here to Send Gladius a Private Message Add Gladius to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Crazy Serb
.tw1sted.mothe®.fu©ker.



Registered: Jun 2001
Location: Sin City

Mental Exodus, well, that article pretty much sums up this whole war issue... I don't there's even a need to discuss this any further! Case closed!


___________________

Keep it real, and stay single, always mingle...

Old Post Mar-26-2003 16:28 
Click Here to See the Profile for Crazy Serb Click here to Send Crazy Serb a Private Message Visit Crazy Serb's homepage! Add Crazy Serb to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Nalin
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Oct 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada

Excellent post Exodus, not that it will STFU any of the ignorant people that roam these boards. Also to add to something that wasn't said in the article, it has been known that Saddam Hussein has brutalized his people for some 30+ years (ie. western countries had footage of the executions and tortures administered by his regime). Where was the US then? Where was the importance of Iraqi liberty/freedom then?

The fact is, the US government, like the article says, is not in Iraq for the interest of Iraqi people or because Iraq poses any sort of half-serious threat to any country. I mean what unignorant person can believe that the US cares about some poor washed up Iraqian civilians when all its foreign policy is explicitly made to help Israel. What person can believe the US would waste some 60+ billion on this war out of sympathy of Iraqi people when the US cant even spend adequate money to help its own poor people, its own people with no health insurance, its own pathetic education system, its own pathetic gun problem, or any wide array of many other problems and when its very evident many of its policies and measures are directed at helping already filthy rich corporations get even richer.

The US is there for US's and Israel's hidden, conspirist motives. The fact that Iraqi people "win" a little out of this war by having a cruel dictator removed from power is a mere coincidence, something to hide US's alterior motives behind of. And thats why many people are against the war. Not because Sadam is a dictator but because the US/Israel are 'under-the-table' dictators as well.

On a last note its funny how many ignorant people (like the article said) buy into the fact that poor, weak countries like Bulgaria or Romania or some African country etc, genuinely support the US/Israel policy. Heck, for once not even yes-man Britain (who has historically followed the US through all stupidity) supports the US as reflected by Blair's cabinet - well except of course Blair who's been a yes-man his whole political life.

Old Post Mar-26-2003 16:51  Romania
Click Here to See the Profile for Nalin Click here to Send Nalin a Private Message Add Nalin to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Az
took me all the way back



Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Walking to John O'Groats for some spastics

quote:
Originally posted by Nalin
well except of course Blair who's been a yes-man his whole political life.


you need to have a clue to post things like that
when you've got one, come back, we'd love to see it

Old Post Mar-26-2003 17:20 
Click Here to See the Profile for Az Click here to Send Az a Private Message Add Az to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
occrider
Traveladdict



Registered: Oct 2000
Location: New York
Re: OK I AM FOR A GOV CHANGE BUT GEEZ THIS LAYS IT DOWN

Phew that's a lot to cover, I'm at work so I'll have to go in bits and peices, but I'll try to address the entire article eventually:

quote:
Originally posted by Mental Exodus

Lie No. 1: “My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.”

The decision for war with Iraq was made long ago, the intervening time having been spent in an attempt to create the political climate in which US troops could be deployed for an attack. According to press reports, most recently March 16 in the Baltimore Sun, at one of the first National Security Council meetings of his presidency, months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Bush expressed his determination to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his willingness to commit US ground troops to an attack on Iraq for that purpose. All that was required was the appropriate pretext—supplied by September 11, 2001.


I think that it's innacurate to state that war was the overall objective as opposed to change. I think that Bush has long been frustrated with the situation of the status quo in Iraq since inspectors were banned in 1998, and came to the decision to use force if necessary. I think that it's important to note that committment to use war as a method to adopt change isn't synonymous with war being the objective, change is still the objective. This is what fueled Bush's insistence that weapons inspectors be readmitted to Iraq and his decision to use force if inspections fail to disarm Iraq.

quote:

Lie No. 2: “For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war.”

The US-led United Nations regime of sanctions against Iraq, combined with “no-fly” zones and provocative weapons inspections, is one of brutal oppression. The deliberate withholding of food, medical supplies and other vital necessities is responsible for the death of more than a million Iraqis, half of them children. Two UN officials who headed the oil-for-food program resigned in protest over the conditions created in Iraq by the sanctions. The CIA used the inspectors as a front, infiltrating agents into UNSCOM, the original inspections program. The CIA’s aim was to spy on Iraq’s top officials and target Saddam Hussein for assassination.

How were the no-fly zones brutal oppression? They were designed to protect the kurds from Iraqi attack, and that's oppressing the CITIZENS of Iraq? Last I knew, Iraqi civilians didn't go galavanting around the country going on joy rides in military jets. Also I don't think that they drive their personal SAM batteries to the no fly zone and take pot shots at US/British jets while on a picnic. If you can prove otherwise than yes I guess it is oppressive. Brutal however? I don't think so. So the United Nations is a "regime" now? Everybody holds it in such high regard today but back then when it had imposed sanctions on Iraq that were enforced by the US it was a "regime"? I like how blame is placed on the UN for the failed humanitarian conditions of Iraq rather than placing blame where it truly belongs ... on Iraq. Obviously these sanctions didn't hurt Iraq enough from building up their military after the war. If a country doesn't care about its own citizens how is the rest of the world supposed to be held accountable? Also aren't weapons inspectors supposed to be provocative? It seems counter-intuitive to have docile, meek inspectors. I would like to see some sources on the CIA issue. If the CIA were plotting to assassinate him, it would be considered illegal. President Gerald Ford issued a ban on assassinations of heads of state in 1976. Executive order No 12333 declares: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." I saw news reports of ex-CIA officials who complained about not getting the go ahead to assassinate Saddam Hueissen directly after the gulf war despite having hte opportunity to do so.

Ok back to work! To be continued later

Old Post Mar-26-2003 19:37  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for occrider Click here to Send occrider a Private Message Add occrider to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Izzy
Virtue & Vice



Registered: Apr 2001
Location: TX TA #5

quote:
Originally posted by Nalin
The US is there for US's and Israel's hidden, conspirist motives.

i'm curios, what conspiricy is that?
quote:

Heck, for once not even yes-man Britain (who has historically followed the US through all stupidity) supports the US as reflected by Blair's cabinet - well except of course Blair who's been a yes-man his whole political life.


dont lie please

"Britain's House of Commons backed Prime Minister Tony Blair's policy on Iraq, voting in favor of using "all means necessary" to disarm Saddam Hussein."

"Lawmakers voted 412 to 149 to use "all means necessary" for disarming Iraq. Before that, they voted 396 to 217 to defeat an amendment by Labor rebels that declared the case for war "has not yet been established."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81403,00.html

sounds like a majority to me


___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

Old Post Mar-26-2003 21:24 
Click Here to See the Profile for Izzy Click here to Send Izzy a Private Message Add Izzy to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Cyrus King
Anti NeoCon Addict



Registered: Oct 2001
Location: Toronto

TIESTO14 WAS BANNED!!!!!!

HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAH

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Its about time...well... its about the second time he has proved his way of thinking is not liked in here.

I even saw him in this forum... reading all the posts that he cant answer becuase of his idiotic nature!

Tiesto14.... I know you are dying to answer us with more profanity and yelling... but you CANT!!!!

LOOOOOOOL


___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

Old Post Mar-26-2003 21:45 
Click Here to See the Profile for Cyrus King Click here to Send Cyrus King a Private Message Add Cyrus King to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
occrider
Traveladdict



Registered: Oct 2000
Location: New York

Back! With another two comments.
quote:

Lie No. 3: “The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament...”

Iraq has never “defied” a Security Council resolution since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. It has generally cooperated with the dictates of the UN body, although frequently under protest or with reservations, because many of the resolutions involve gross violations of Iraqi sovereignty. From 1991 to 1998, UN inspectors supervised the destruction of the vast bulk of the chemical and biological weapons, as well as delivery systems, which Iraq accumulated (with the assistance of the US) during the Iran-Iraq war, and they also destroyed all of Iraq’s facilities for making new weapons.


It has defied UN resolutions in the sense that it has failed to fully comply with them. They have defied UN resolutions in that it has taken 11 years and they still hadn’t completely disarmed. They didn’t come out and openly “defy” them but by not cooperating they are acting in the spirit of defiance. Yes they have “generally” cooperated with the dictates of the UN body except for the part about disarming! Gross violations of Iraqi sovereignty??? Well if the UN resolutions are such gross violations to Iraqi sovereignty maybe they shouldn’t have agreed to them when they signed the truce agreement in 1991. I don’t understand what the author is trying to convey? It seems like he’s criminalizing the destruction of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons! At any rate if Iraq was in complete compliance of UN resolutions why did the UN have to fight Iraq to readmit inspectors, then get him to concede to all the demands of inspectors, then issue subsequent resolutions demanding full compliance or face consequences?

quote:

Lie No. 4: “Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.”

According to the Washington Post of March 16, referring to the 1991-1998 inspection period: “[U]nder UN supervision, Iraq destroyed 817 of 819 proscribed medium-range missiles, 14 launchers, 9 trailers and 56 fixed missile-launch sites. It also destroyed 73 of 75 chemical or biological warheads and 163 warheads for conventional explosives. UN inspectors also supervised destruction of 88,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, more than 600 tons of weaponized and bulk chemical weapons agents, 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals and 980 pieces of equipment considered key to production of such weapons.”


I posted these facts myself in an earlier thread. I then listed all the unaccounted weapons and criticisms UNSCOM had for Iraq. However the search function is disabled and I'll just post something I found on bbc news:

In early 1999, Unscom gave the Security Council its own assessment of what Iraq had destroyed and what remained unaccounted for.
The US and UK want a full explanation of what happened to the following:

· 360 tonnes of chemical warfare agents, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent;
· 3,000 tonnes of chemical precursors (which are developed into chemical weapons) including 300 tonnes uniquely used for VX.

The 1999 Unscom report said:
"According to Iraq, 1.5 tonnes of VX were discarded unilaterally by dumping on the ground. Traces of one VX-degradation product and a chemical known as a VX-stabilizer were found in the samples taken from the VX dump sites. A quantified assessment is not possible."


Britain and America want to know about :
· Growth media for 20,000 litres of biological warfare agents. Any Iraqi claims that this will have degenerated will not be accepted as mustard gas found in shells in 1997 was active;
· Shells for use in biological warfare - 20,000 are missing say the British, 15,000 say the Americans;

Unscom said in 1999:
"The commission has little or no confidence in Iraq's accounting for proscribed items for which physical evidence is lacking or inconclusive, documentation is sparse or nonexistent, and coherence and consistency is lacking.
These include, for example: quantities and types of munitions available for biological weapons (BW) filling; quantities and types of munitions filled with BW agents; quantities and type of bulk agents produced; quantities of bulk agents used in filling; quantities of bulk agents destroyed; quantities of growth media acquired for the programme; and quantities of growth media used/consumed.
In addition, the commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed; that no BW munitions or weapons remain in Iraq; and that a BW capability does not still exist in Iraq."


Washington and London demand disclosure on:
· 6,000 chemical warfare bombs.
Unscom said:
The commission has accepted the destruction of about 34,000 munitions on the basis of multiple sources, including physical evidence, documents provided by Iraq etc. However, it has not been possible to achieve a numerical accounting of destroyed munitions due to heavy bomb damage of the CW storage facilities, where these munitions had been stored during the Gulf war. The destruction of about 2,000 unfilled munitions remain uncertain, 550 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.

To be continued ... 16 more to go ... sigghhhhh

Old Post Mar-26-2003 22:18  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for occrider Click here to Send occrider a Private Message Add occrider to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Mental Exodus
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Toronto, Can
Be Cool!

QUOTE: NALIN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been known that Saddam Hussein has brutalized his people for some 30+ years (ie. western countries had footage of the executions and tortures administered by his regime). Where was the US then? Where was the importance of Iraqi liberty/freedom then?

The US is there for US's and Israel's hidden, conspirist motives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes we have reports of bad treatment. Yes we didn’t do anything about it then. Yes the U.S. has supposedly “hidden “ motives.

HOWEVER! U must understand what is happening globally to understand what is happening now in a full context. (THE MOTIVES ARENT HIDDEN) I could go into another in depth article or re post very large articles I have written which people don’t read anyway SO for the sake of sumin it all up I will say this.

“””””Oil has literally made foreign and security policy for decades. Just since the turn of this century, it has provoked the division of the Middle East after World War I; aroused Germany and Japan to extend their tentacles beyond their borders; the Arab Oil Embargo; Iran versus Iraq; the Gulf War. This is all clear.”””””””””
-- Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, December 9, 1999

EARTH is NOW at a time of PEAK oil production. This means from here on out there will be less and less of it for us. This also means it costs way more. The peak in oil production for many nations has already been reached!!!!! It is estimated that middle easts oil peak will be around the year 2011. That being said it becomes clear why we are there. The investment now will pay off for the US later as the change over from oil to other forms of energy will cost them less.

To really get a good idea of what im talking about check out.
http://dieoff.com/page133.htm
This is only one example site, there are many more which state mostly the same figures.

Other factors do play interesting roles like weapons and ill treatment but these can be found throughout the world and we don’t do anything . This is only my opinion and yes I do know it’s a .org site. I couldn’t find any others on hand.

QUOTE: occrider
----------------------------------------------
How were the no-fly zones brutal oppression?
---------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
So the United Nations is a "regime" now?
-------------------------------------
I do agree that it is wordy in a couple of places and I should have edited it or noted it. MY BAD. However its not my place to edit.

----------------------------------------------
I would like to see some sources on the CIA issue. If the CIA were plotting to assassinate him, it would be considered illegal
----------------------------------------------------

Illegal or not it can be done. Im looking for sources but finding any with cred is far from easy on the net. Ill ask around.

I C u are replying to the whole thing, ill wait until your finished to respond further in order to keep things orderly.


___________________
Todays youth have desacrated music with the popification of all generes. FOR SHAME.

MUSIC GURU - 2002.

Old Post Mar-26-2003 23:06  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for Mental Exodus Click here to Send Mental Exodus a Private Message Visit Mental Exodus's homepage! Add Mental Exodus to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Az
took me all the way back



Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Walking to John O'Groats for some spastics

on a side note, anyone else hear that Halliburton were the first company given contracts to dig for oil?

Old Post Mar-26-2003 23:12 
Click Here to See the Profile for Az Click here to Send Az a Private Message Add Az to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message

TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Iraq to use Chemical WMD in war...u morons
Post New Thread    Post A Reply

Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 »  
Last Thread   Next Thread
Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackgreat tunes need ID (part 2) [2005] [2]

Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackWarrior - Drama [2002]

Show Printable Version | Subscribe to this Thread
Forum Jump:

All times are GMT. The time now is 19:25.

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
 
Search this Thread:

 
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict

Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
Support TA!