quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The short answer is that, like I've been saying all along, they were never there to begin with.

So your telling me the UN lied?

Just wanted to check

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

They are all hidden in France.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus So your telling me the UN lied?

The UN never lies.

But seriously, I think you'll find that the UNSC never actually reached consensus on the issue because the inspectors were withdrawn too early. Happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think that the UN, as an organisation, or any of its subsidiary groups (eg. UNMOVIC) ever declared definitively that Iraq still possessed banned weapons.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade declared definitively that Iraq still possessed banned weapons.

But it did declare them unaccount for...

hence the reasoning behind my second question.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

alright folks, lets snap back into reality here. i realize LiquidX's talents from being a Supreme Master of the Obvious has awed us once again

let me suggest to you that reading the Key Findings of the report alone, can develop one's perspective far more than what the media editorials are capable of.

educate, gain some of your own perspective
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/wmdfinalreport.pdf
it is very interesting.
totaly non-partisaned.
easy to read

then lets discuss this. if not? thats cool too.


BTW, Saddam even had some of his top military commanders and officials thinking he had WMD's.
so don't feel bad.

I love how Cheney said in the debate that Saddam was going to give terrorists WMD...hehehehe now he is going down.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Octanesyco Greetings. My name is Casey. You can call me Moose. -Moose

Does it really matter anymore, the moronic American public will continue to run around believing that Saddam Hussein was connected to September 11th when they haar that he was allegedely supporting terrorism, since terrorists attacked us on September 11th or was that Saddam Hussein

All I have to say folks is prepare yourselves for four more years of the same spinning, lying and disgusting contempt that this administration treats others with if and when they are reelected, help us all.

The premise that is now being claimed for war, Saddams future intent to produce weapons under a failing sanctions system even though he had no weapons in a decade(but the sanctions were failing) is as repulsive as the fact that North Korea and Iran have made no secret of their intentions to do so and the Chickenhawks can't do jack shit but negotiate whether they want to or not.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus But it did declare them unaccount for...

Yes, but there's a difference between delaring weapons "unaccounted for" and suggesting, as the coalition did, that Iraq had large WMD stockpiles and active biological and chemical weapon programs. If you read the full text of Resolution 1441 (available here), you'll notice that the consensus reached was that Iraq was in "material breach" due to its failure to provide a "complete disclosure" (i.e. material evidence) about the weapons programs it claimed to no longer have and the fact that it had failed to allow UNMOVIC unfettered access to sites of interest. Nothing in the Resolution suggests a widely held belief that Iraq still had WMD or WMD programs, merely that Iraq hadn't complied with the terms of 687 for the above reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo let me suggest to you that reading the Key Findings of the report alone, can develop one's perspective far more than what the media editorials are capable of.

All the quotes from my above post were taken from the very "Key Findings" report you're talking about. Which particular aspect of gross intelligence failure did you wish to discuss in more detail?

quote:

BTW, Saddam even had some of his top military commanders and officials thinking he had WMD's. so don't feel bad.

Source? Relevence?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Yes, but there's a difference between delaring weapons "unaccounted for" and suggesting, as the coalition did, that Iraq had large WMD stockpiles and active biological and chemical weapon programs. If you read the full text of Resolution 1441 (available here), you'll notice that the consensus reached was that Iraq was in "material breach" due to its failure to provide a "complete disclosure" (i.e. material evidence) about the weapons programs it claimed to no longer have and the fact that it had failed to allow UNMOVIC unfettered access to sites of interest. Nothing in the Resolution suggests a widely held belief that Iraq still had WMD or WMD programs, merely that Iraq hadn't complied with the terms of 687 for the above reasons. All the quotes from my above post were taken from the very "Key Findings" report you're talking about. Which particular aspect of gross intelligence failure did you wish to discuss in more detail? Source? Relevence?

Its all to take away from the fact that there are no WMDs in Iraq as was claimed and premised as a justification for the invasion of Iraq. Just watch the French, German, Russians be blamed for events as well. When will we as a nation see the facts for what it is, there are no weapons, Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S and thus the war was rushed into for the purposes of a Neo-Con administration asserting their bullshit American hegemony policy. All the world doesn't care to be like us, thank goodness it would be a much more boring place without other cultures, too bad many Americans don't seem to realize or care about this when we speak of others be they French, Germans, Chinese or Iraqis. Do we want to be like the French, Chinese, Japanese, whomever, didn't think so.

I am struggling with the justification for this conflict without any weapons that threatened us, too bad Bush just has to say Saddam Hussein was a threat, the world is better off without him, John Kerry changes his positions and its eaten up by many. If things changed on September 11th and Iraq can be justified with such sham premises, then the U.S. Army should be sitting on the doorsteps of Iran and North Korea or are we not concerned that they would share technology with terrorists Iraq is pure Bullshit

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

Last edited by NYCTrancefan on Oct-07-2004 at 13:51

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Yes, but there's a difference between delaring weapons "unaccounted for" and suggesting, as the coalition did, that Iraq had large WMD stockpiles and active biological and chemical weapon programs. If you read the full text of Resolution 1441 (available

I know what accounting is. And it could very well be that the UN simply had bad accountants - I wouldn't be suprised these days. Maybe they used Aurther Anderson to estimate the WMD Iraq did have?

But even if they over stated WMD possession considerably I believe there is enough room for error for there still to be WMD 'missing'. So unnless the accounting is inaccurate - and I've never heard a claim for this - you have WMD missing. Its quiet silly I think the make a conclusion when you can't come up with an explination, a factual explination, of what happened to the WMD. If you can't find out what happened to the WMD, how can one trust you to find the WMD at all if they do exist?

I don't know. Perhaps they do have an explination. I have not read the hundreds of pages of the report yet - but they must be filled with something.

quote:

you'll notice that the consensus reached was that Iraq was in "material breach" due to its failure to provide a "complete disclosure" (i.e. material evidence) about the weapons programs it claimed to no longer have and the fact that it had failed to allow UNMOVIC unfettered access to sites of interest. Nothing in the Resolution suggests a widely held belief that Iraq still had WMD or WMD programs, merely that Iraq hadn't complied with the terms of 687 for the above reasons.

Yes I know. I used this very resolution pre-war to say the war on Iraq was legitimate - and I sitll beleive that in my opinion. The beauty of the legal argument for the war on Iraq is much simpler and does not lay on the foundation that Saddam has or does not have WMD. The legal claim for war is that Saddam has impeded and fustrated inspections. i.e. alla Martha Steward - not necessarily doing insider trading, but lying to federal officials and destorting reality.

I still believe the legal justificaiton for the war on Iraq was right, and so personally I've had less of an issue with WMD. The only incosistancy with my believes is that the Bush admin has not used the legal argument in its array of arguments against Iraq, and has sort of set them self up primarly around WMD (although again not the only reason).





As a side note: Yesterday on Charlie Rose there was a good panel debating this issue. He started the show with Richard Perle, who I believe has a very good interview, even if you don't swing his way - he presented his arugments in good light and met the knew arguments quiet well. Next they had some guys from the NY Times who wrote something about centrifuges and intelligences failure - it was evident from hearing them speak, they they follow the Dan Rather syndrome of wanting to believe - they're 'research' was to politically motivated to bring to much credit too' - and across the table they had the former Iraq Director of the Centrifuge question which seemed a very interesting guy to hear his take from.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

depending if the Democrats use this effectively to sway undecided....they can seal the election.

Primary reason to go to war: WMD
Verdict: None since 1991

Republicans are on the ropes with this one indeed.

I was listening to commentators today morning on NPR, and they mentioned that by analyzing the report, Saddam was one of the primary sources, where Saddam said that he, in some way, made believed that he was somewat armed, this said, as some type of defense against Iran, and US, and this is commonly used by governments worldwide ( imagine been a country without any weapons, you don't want to be shown vulnerable to any enemy country ), and unlike North Korea and Iran who have openly proven they are in fact producing weapons. It would have been "bad" for Iraq if that was seen on Iran or elsewhere, BUUTT, this does not excuse the intelligence networks to take that into account. It is their job to prove this true or not, it was their job to see if Saddam was indeed armed or not, and, as previous reports showed, in a summary of words.. the intelligence openly said that there were no implications that showed that Saddam was armed, or had any in process, and this is probably one of the reasons why U.N. did not support the U.S. into the invasion of Iraq. This is a huge blow for the Bush/Cheney ticket, and for the U.S. itself. If they win after this.. I dont know what to think anymore..

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

Last edited by LiquidX on Oct-07-2004 at 19:24