Powell: Iraq Evidence May Have Been Wrong - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-06-2004, 08:10 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:59 AM
With what's going on in Falluja, I say we send in Saddam.....
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 08:21 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Define coalition....yeah....after we figure out how we can say Iraq was not verifiably disarming itself at the time the US attacked. Last I knew there were inspectors there doing their job.
Inspectors can't do Saddam's job for him which is to hand over or show where thousands of Stocks of WMD either are located intact or were destroyed. Verifiable disarmament cannot be achieved short of the use of military force without the cooperation of Saddam. Saddam did not account for all kinds of WMD when inspectors re-entered the country. The Inspectors can't find the WMD for him, especially if he has hidden it somewhere and does not want it to be found.

The exact same problems that UN inspectors had in 1998 when they were kicked out still existed in March 2003.

If you want an example of how the disarmament process is supposed to go, please examine the disarmament of the Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakstahn, South Africa or even Libya now.


Whats your definition of a coalition?
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 08:32 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 02:59 PM
We haven't found ANY WMD yet, and Bush is going to turn the county back over to self rule on June 30? That makes NO sense.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 08:34 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The Weapons exist, either intact or in an un-intact form. Saddam never accounted for stocks of 1,000 Liters of Anthrax and 500 pounds of Mustard Gas and 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells.
Where are they? We've been there for over a year.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 09:33 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1


Where are they? We've been there for over a year.
If Saddam is unwilling to answer that question, the WMD may whether it is intact or not, may never be found. In a country the size of Iraq, it would be reletively easy to bury such materials making it nearly impossible to ever find them.

Regardless of that fact, Saddam's regime has been effectively disarmed.

On June 30, all that will happen is that the 25 members of the Iraqi council will take over from Bremer. More than 100,000 US troops and other coalition troops will remain in the country continuing the work they are currently doing. The search for Saddam's WMD, regardless of what state it is in will continue.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 09:52 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The administration never said "imminent threat"
Oh really?

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

Some "variations"...

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02


You want to argue semantics, fine. But don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining (TM Judge Judy). Reasonable people don't see much difference between imminent and immediate, both of which are patently untrue apparently.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-07-2004, 01:11 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Oh really?

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

Some "variations"...

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02


You want to argue semantics, fine. But don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining (TM Judge Judy). Reasonable people don't see much difference between imminent and immediate, both of which are patently untrue apparently.
Why do you think the United Nations in the March 1991 Ceacefire agreement required that Saddam VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD or face military action to insure his disarmament?

#1 If Saddam's WMD was not a threat the United Nations would never have brought the issue up in the Ceacefire.

#2 More importantly, the only reason to back up ceacefire agreement and other resolutions with potential enforcement through the use of military force, is if the threat is in fact a serious one.

You can throw around terms or cherry pick sentence a or sentence b from this or that speech, but the central reasons and cases for military action were laid down more than a decade ago.

Did Saddam have a military that could cross the border into other countries at any given time? Yes

Did Saddam's military actually have WMD that it could use at that particular time? No one knows for sure.

What we do know is that Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD which multiple UN resolutions considered serious enough to warrent the use of military force in order to bring about full and verifiable Disarmament of Saddam's regime.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-07-2004, 01:55 AM   #38
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Gee, how come I always lose interest as soon as I see the phrase 'verifiably disarm' in a post? It always makes me assume there's nothing of interest in the rest of it...

__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 04-07-2004, 03:25 AM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Calluna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 3,542
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Popmartijn, I feel exactly the same way. Some people around here sound just like a broken record so you have no choice but to tune them out.
__________________
Calluna is offline  
Old 04-07-2004, 07:53 AM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:59 PM
How come when most people have said something wrong on the boards they are willing to admit it?

Go ANITRAM!!!!!! Fernando is singing for you
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-07-2004, 08:14 AM   #41
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 06:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


It is a FACT, that Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. Saddam never accounted for stocks of over 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells.


.....


Any study of the 12 year history of the Iraq situation from the March 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire to the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 will tell you what this war was about!

Firstly, it wasn't whether he HAD disarmed (that is a seperate debate) but whether the weapons were the main reason.
Secondly, why it has never been presented well to the American and worldwide public. Now there is understandable anger that the evidence is shaky. That's all. You've put your case forward many times, I understand your response. It wasn't what I was talking about though.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 04-07-2004, 06:11 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem



Firstly, it wasn't whether he HAD disarmed (that is a seperate debate) but whether the weapons were the main reason.
Secondly, why it has never been presented well to the American and worldwide public. Now there is understandable anger that the evidence is shaky. That's all. You've put your case forward many times, I understand your response. It wasn't what I was talking about though.
#1 I tried to explain that that Saddam's possession of WMD was the main reason by discussing the history of US and UN involvement in Iraq from March 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003.

UN Sanctions, resolutions, and inspections all revolved around the issue of Saddam's WMD for 12 years prior to this war.

Saddam + WMD have been viewed as an intolerable threat to the region and the world by the UN since March 1991.

#2 I think it has been very well presented and Bush is not the first American to present the case for military action against Iraq. The central issue presented by the administration has been the central issue for the past 12 years. The international community had tried everything short of full scale military invasion to achieve Verifiable Disarmament of Saddam and failed.

Intelligence information is ALWAYS shaky! I remind you of the intelligence estimates from the 1980s that said Saddam was decades away from having a nuclear weapon. After the Gulf War was over, UN inspectors found that Saddam was only months away from a nuclear weapon.

Tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year, there is going to be Intelligence Information that is very accurate and not so accurate. Thats the nature of intelligence.

This war was not based on intelligence but on Saddam's obligations to verifiably disarm. If Saddam had cooperated like the Ukraine, Belarus, Kazaksthan or even now Libya, there would not be a war.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-09-2004, 05:19 AM   #43
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
This war was not based on intelligence
yes, that's what I'm starting to fear
__________________
β€œSome scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 04-09-2004, 08:39 AM   #44
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 03:59 PM
But the administration DID use the words "imminent threat," yes?
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 04-09-2004, 09:18 AM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Salome

__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright Β© Interference.com