Search for WMD ended last month - 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 01-13-2005, 06:51 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:44 AM
in 2003 saddam said he did not have them
in 2003 bush said he did

in 2004 bush says saddam did not have them

Saddam tells the truth in 2003
Bush does in 2004
Quote:
When and where did Saddam ever account for these stocks?
he said he did not have them
and now Bush says the same
perhaps you should be debating Bush
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 06:56 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
Complying with UN resolutions cannot be used as a reason for military action since many many many many countries allied with and against the US have failed to comply with the UN resolutions and not faced military action. Plus at the time, the US government was berating the UN to the point where it considered the UN to a non-player so it does not make sense to say one does not need UN approval to go to war while at the same time using the non-compliance of a country to a UN resolution as a reason for going to said war.
UN resolutions passed against Iraq were passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations which allow the use of military force to bring about enforcement. UN resolutions passed against countries like Israel were passed under CHAPTER VI rules of the United Nations which does NOT allow the use of military force to bring about enforcement.

The United Nations allows any country to act in its own self defense even without a UN resolution authorizing military force. But in this case, member states of the United Nations launched the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 to enforce multiple UN resolutions that AUTHORIZED such action if Saddam had failed to comply with the resolutions.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 07:18 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
in 2003 saddam said he did not have them
in 2003 bush said he did

in 2004 bush says saddam did not have them

Saddam tells the truth in 2003
Bush does in 2004


he said he did not have them
and now Bush says the same
perhaps you should be debating Bush
Once again, UN inspectors have said in both 1998, 2002 and today that Saddam failed to account for over 1,000 liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells. That is a fact that no inspector or country disputes.

The process here is VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT. Its a fact that Saddam had these stocks, no one disputes that. For there to be verifiable disarmament, Saddam has to either hand over intact stocks of WMD or show where the WMD was dismantled so it can be verified that in fact took place. Anything short of those two senerio's means the WMD is still unaccounted for and verifiable disarmament has not been achieved.

Its not enough to say, "I don't have them" to have verifiable disarmament. If Saddam truely did not have the stocks, then he has to show what he did with them when he got rid of them. Did he give them to someone else, or did he dismantle them and bury the material some place. Regardless, until Saddam shows what he did with all the material that he had, Saddam has failed to verifiably disarm.


What Saddam said in 2003 was that he had destroyed the WMD and destroyed any evidence of the destruction of the WMD, which in itself is a violation of the disarmament process and also technically impossible as well. If Saddam dismantled the WMD where is the evidence of the dismantlement? Without an material to show that the WMD stocks were dismantled, the process of verifiable disarmament cannot be achieved. All you have is someone's claim about what happened to stocks he had that were supposed to be dismantled under the watchful eye of UN inspectors.

Bush has never stated that Saddam complied with any UN resolutions or accounted for the missing stocks of WMD. Bush has stated that we have failed to find any WMD or many of the OTHER things we thought Saddam had.

But that does not change the facts of the United Nations inspectors reports which show that Saddam never accounted for thousands of stocks of WMD.

It is anyone's guess where the WMD is now, dismantled and buried below ground, intact and below ground, some other place either intact or dismantled. Either way, to this date it remains unaccounted for just as it was unaccounted for in 1998. Verifiable Disarmament requires that such stocks be accounted for and dismantled under the supervision of UN inspectors. Saddam's regime never did this and as a result it was removed.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 07:21 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 12:14 PM
I am not disputing the resolution was passed allowing use of military force. I am just saying that the US government was saying the UN was no longer relevant and then used the " no longer relevant"'s resolution for going to war. Also, this was a pre-emptive war not self-defense.

For example, if I said I don't care what you think but then turn around and use something you said as a reason for doing something then I kind lose a little credibility. BTW, I do care what you think, that was just an example. I enjoy hearing other POV.

Anyway, this ain't about right or wrong because everyone has a view on this topic. I have said my piece.

Peace out.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 08:06 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
Complying with UN resolutions cannot be used as a reason for military action since many many many many countries allied with and against the US have failed to comply with the UN resolutions and not faced military action. Plus at the time, the US government was berating the UN to the point where it considered the UN to a non-player so it does not make sense to say one does not need UN approval to go to war while at the same time using the non-compliance of a country to a UN resolution as a reason for going to said war.

Anyway, where are WMDs then? In Syria and Lebanon? Iran? In a safety deposit box?

Frankly, unless they find some legitimate evidence this makes the US government look rather foolish and I really feel bad for all the people who sacrificed their children and the casualties who have to come home and try to rebuild their lives with injuries from the war.

If the rational for going to war from the beginning was to liberate a country from a dictatorship then I would have understood this reasoning. If is was to eliiminate a possible future threat to the US, well, Bush better get busy because there are dozens of countries out there that are a "future potential threat" to "freedom".

I have never understood how the most powerful, richest government in the history of the world with the largest military machine ever seen by man along with a ton of nukes was fearful of a pathetic despot in a tiny country with barely any navy, a weakened useless army, outdated equipment and cordened in with no fly zones after a decade of economic sanctions on the other side of the world.

I thought it was because it was time for the military guys to blow their wad and reload with new stuff for military contractors to sell to the government, but that's just me.
I responded to the UN resolutions part in an above posts.

As to where the WMD could be, it could easily be anywhere in Iraq. Iraq is the size of Texas and such stocks would be easy to hide underground in such a way that they would never be found by anyone. Just think about it, if I took something from your house and buried it 500 feet underground 400 miles from your house, do you think you would ever find it?

It was never incumbent upon the United States or any member government of the United Nations to prove that Saddam had WMD. In 1991, Saddam signed a UN ceacefire Agreement to end the first Gulf War in which he agreed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD! Failure to do so would mean renewed military action. If Saddam had dismantled stocks of WMD or still had intact ones, it was incumbent upon Saddam and Saddam alone to either hand over the stocks or show the dismantled remains. Anything short of that would be a violation of the Ceacefire Agreement that ended the first Gulf War.



Some things to remember about the threat from Saddam and the region.

The Planet is dependent upon the energy resources of the Persian Gulf Region to keep the global economy running smoothly. A sudden loss of the energy this region provideds the world would create a global economic depression that would make the great depression of the 1930s look like a vacation. The consequences of such a depression cannot be fully caculated.

Saddam had invaded and attacked four different countries in the region with the goal of siezing other countries oil reserves. He had used WMD more times in these military actions than any other leader in history. In the process, over 1.7 million people inside and outside the region had died as a result of his military actions.

Given these facts, the UN brought up a number of conditions that Saddam had to fully agree to if he wanted to end hostilities with the coalition in March of 1991. Among these conditions was the verifiable disarmament of all WMD. Saddam was found after the Gulf War to be only one year away from having a Nuclear Weapon and given his actions, the invasions and attacks on four different countries in less than ten years and his proximity to one of the most vital regions of the planet, there was absolutely no room for error. Saddam had to either comply with the conditions or be removed from power. Saddam initially did comply with many things, but this tappered off in the mid 1990s causing many problems.

By 2003, Saddam was making over 4 Billion dollars a year through the blackmarket sale of his oil and the sanctions essentially did not exist in many area's. Smuggling new weapons into Iraq was possible and did happen. Within a few years at the rate the embargo and sanctions were falling apart, it would be possible for Saddam to begin rearming his military in a substantial way.

Also, failing to enforce the UNs most serious resolutions, would essentially make any such resolutions in the future irrelevant.

The international community could not allow Saddam to use unaccounted for WMD to aid him in a new military adventure as he had done so many times in the past. The International Community could not allow Saddam to rebuild his military strength and gain access to new weapons that would dwarf past capabilities.

Saddam unlike, other dictators in the world today, had unprovoked, invaded and attacked 4 different countries, used WMD more times than any leader in history, threatened the planets energy supply and economy through his actions, capabilities and proximity to much of the regions energy supplies, and killed over 1.7 million people. Find a dictator or country in todays world that has even remotely come close to that behavior.

Most the planets energy supplies comes from an area that is within 100 miles of the Iraqi border in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Kuwait. As Saddam had already previously shown, it does not take the largest or best equipped military in the world, if positioned along these area's, to potentially sieze or sabotage this incredibly vital region of the world. Saddam had already come close to doing this once, to allow him another chance would be insane. The resolutions and Ceacefire Agreement were designed to prevent Saddam from being able to commit his prior actions. Failing to enforce the Ceacefire Agreement and the resolutions would jeopardize the security of the region and the global economy.

The threat from an undisarmed Saddam was something the UN decided was an unacceptable threat in 1991 which is why in stating the conditions for the Gulf War Ceacefire , it required that Saddam fully and Verifiably disarm of all WMD or face renewed military action to bring about compliance with that condition.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 08:14 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
I am not disputing the resolution was passed allowing use of military force. I am just saying that the US government was saying the UN was no longer relevant and then used the " no longer relevant"'s resolution for going to war. Also, this was a pre-emptive war not self-defense.

For example, if I said I don't care what you think but then turn around and use something you said as a reason for doing something then I kind lose a little credibility. BTW, I do care what you think, that was just an example. I enjoy hearing other POV.

Anyway, this ain't about right or wrong because everyone has a view on this topic. I have said my piece.

Peace out.
The US government never said that the UN was not revelant. It in fact went back to the UN in late 2002 and got another UN resolution authorizing military action in November of 2002. When Saddam failed to comply once again, the invasion was launched in March of 2003 by member states of the UN in compliance with UN resolution 1441 that had been passed just four months earlier.

The war was launched to enforce the terms of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement and is a defensive action because Saddam's failure to comply with the Ceacefire agreement for a war which was the result of SADDAM's invasion of Kuwait, is an attack on the safety and security of the whole international community.

No one ever said they did not care what someone else thought? After the war to remove Saddam from power was over, the UN stepped in again and approved the occupation. It has sense approved the occupation process two more times.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 08:18 AM   #37
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 09:44 AM
The way I see it, there are three possible scenarios:

1) There were not any WMD, in which case we screwed up pretty bad.

2) There were WMD. We invaded because of the security threat these weapons presented. But we have no idea where the weapons are, and we have for all practical purposes given up on finding them. Since they could be anywhere, in the hands of anyone, the security threat has not been resolved. Hence, this war is a failure from a national security standpoint.

3) What WMD? Don't you remember 9/11, people?

If I'm missing something, someone let me know.
__________________
strannix is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 04:00 PM   #38
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 03:44 PM
Thanks Sting2 for the much needed perspective and memory refresher. Thats history as I remember it. You could have also added that he was shooting at our planes but that's a minor point. Oh, and that Clinton, Kerry, et.al. were giving speeches in the 90s about the threat of Saddam's WMDs.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 04:08 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by strannix
The way I see it, there are three possible scenarios:

1) There were not any WMD, in which case we screwed up pretty bad.

2) There were WMD. We invaded because of the security threat these weapons presented. But we have no idea where the weapons are, and we have for all practical purposes given up on finding them. Since they could be anywhere, in the hands of anyone, the security threat has not been resolved. Hence, this war is a failure from a national security standpoint.

3) What WMD? Don't you remember 9/11, people?

If I'm missing something, someone let me know.

Its a fact according to the United Nations inspections that Saddam had WMD. It is also a fact that when inspectors were kicked out in November 1998, that Saddam had failed to account for over 1,000 liters of Anthrax, hundreds pounds of mustard gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells.

When inspectors were let back in, in 2002, Saddam was supposed to account for the missing stocks listed above and he didn't. He claimed that the stocks were dismantled but gave no evidence showing where this took place and the remains of any dismantlment

Once again, this is about verifiable disarmament of Saddam's massive stockpile of WMD and while large stocks were found, over 1,000 liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells remain unaccounted for.

The Security threat was not WMD alone or Saddam alone, it was Saddam and his possession of WMD. Saddam sits in a jail now and his regime has been destroyed, so although the WMD has not been accounted for, Saddam has essentially been fully DISARMED. The threat was never simply about WMD, it was about Saddam's regimes possession of WMD and the abilities it would give him in any new conflict he could start at any time, based on his past behavior. While its unfortunate that the WMD has not been accounted for, clearly the international community has done everything in its power to find it, which would not have been the case if the war had not been launched.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 10:44 AM.


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