Mmissing Nerve Gas, Anthraz, Nuke Bomb Parts - Page 3

FizzingWhizzbees · 12-21-2002, 03:50 PM

Just out of interest...say the weapons inspectors report back that they found nothing in Iraq. Would you believe them? Or would some people still insist that they just hadn't looked in the right place or something?

ie - it seems that some people have already decided Iraq is guilty...would you accept any proof to the contrary, or are you so convinced that you think the only solution is to attack them regardless?

Popmartijn · 12-21-2002, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by STING2
United Nations resolutions past in regards to Israel and Cyprus were passed under CHAPTER 6 RULES! Chapter 6 Rules do not allow the use of force to bring violators into compliance with the resolutions. The 16 UN resolutions that Iraq is in violation of were passed under CHAPTER 7 RULES of the United Nations which require, if need be, the use of force to bring about compliance with United Nations resolutions.

Why aren't there any resolutions against Israel under chapter 7 rules? Is it maybe because they all get vetoed by the USA? Thus the only way for the UN to condone actions by Israel is to have a very weak resolution under chapter 6 rules.
Yesterday, the USA again vetoed a resolution against Israel. The resolution condoned the killing by Israel of 3 UN-employees some weeks ago. They were shot by the Israeli army. The USA did not agree with this statement. They wanted to have a resolution that only said the UN was 'saddened by the loss of 3 of its employees'.
Chapter 6 or chapter 7, it doesn't say anything about severity. It only says if you have powerful friends who let you keep bullying others or not.

C ya!

Marty

STING2 · 12-21-2002, 04:08 PM

I don't have time to respond fully at the moment but I just wanted to say that it is not incumbent on the UN to prove that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, it is incumbent on Iraq to prove that they do not have weapons of mass destruction and for the UN to verify whether that is an established fact. There are a vast number of weapons missing from the list that Iraq produced recently. Iraq claims that they were destroyed and then like a child claiming "the dog ate my homework" claims that they destroyed the evidence of the destruction of the weapons. There would be considerable evidence of any destruction of such a large amount of weapons, and if Iraq does not show this evidence if it is in fact so they destroyed the weapons, one has to assume that the weapons still exist.

People should remember that it was Iraq that invaded Kuwait and with the Ceacefire of the Gulf War agreed to all the terms set down by the coalition including giving up all their weapons of mass destruction and providing the proof that they have done so. Iraq has yet to prove that they have destroyed all their weapons of mass destruction, and unless they do, Iraq will have to be disarmed by military force!

FizzingWhizzbees · 12-21-2002, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by STING2
I don't have time to respond fully at the moment but I just wanted to say that it is not incumbent on the UN to prove that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, it is incumbent on Iraq to prove that they do not have weapons of mass destruction and for the UN to verify whether that is an established fact. There are a vast number of weapons missing from the list that Iraq produced recently. Iraq claims that they were destroyed and then like a child claiming "the dog ate my homework" claims that they destroyed the evidence of the destruction of the weapons. There would be considerable evidence of any destruction of such a large amount of weapons, and if Iraq does not show this evidence if it is in fact so they destroyed the weapons, one has to assume that the weapons still exist.

People should remember that it was Iraq that invaded Kuwait and with the Ceacefire of the Gulf War agreed to all the terms set down by the coalition including giving up all their weapons of mass destruction and providing the proof that they have done so. Iraq has yet to prove that they have destroyed all their weapons of mass destruction, and unless they do, Iraq will have to be disarmed by military force!

In other words, Iraq is guilty until proven innocent. How do you think Iraq could prove itself innocent - it's declared it doesn't have prohibited weapons, it's permitted UN inspectors unrestricted access to the country, what more can it do to prove its innocence? By contrast, it seems that the US does not have to give any sort of proof before making accusations that Iraq has prohibited weapons.

Dreadsox · 12-21-2002, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees

In other words, Iraq is guilty until proven innocent. How do you think Iraq could prove itself innocent - it's declared it doesn't have prohibited weapons, it's permitted UN inspectors unrestricted access to the country, what more can it do to prove its innocence? By contrast, it seems that the US does not have to give any sort of proof before making accusations that Iraq has prohibited weapons.

Let me get this straight....

1. They possessed WMD
2. They stop inspectors years ago
3. THey let the inspectors return.
4. They provide no evidence that what they had is destroyed.
5. We should believe them??????

WHY??????
THis does not take into account the violations of prior resolutions.

Peace

FizzingWhizzbees · 12-21-2002, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dreadsox

Let me get this straight....

1. They possessed WMD
2. They stop inspectors years ago
3. THey let the inspectors return.
4. They provide no evidence that what they had is destroyed.
5. We should believe them??????

But what evidence could Iraq produce that would convince the US that it really doesn't have any prohibited weapons? I thought that permitting UN inspectors to inspect their country was a way of proving they don't have the weapons they're accused of possessing, but now it seems that some are suggesting that's not enough and Iraq has to find some other way of proving its innocence. What do you think Iraq could do to prove its innocence and avoid being attacked?

Dreadsox · 12-21-2002, 04:48 PM

Fizz,

Do you believe that if he had the weapons, he destroyed them, and now cannot prove it?

Peace

STING2 · 12-22-2002, 12:56 AM

If Saddam wants to come clean, he has to show where the weapons that were not included on the 12,000 page report, that the UN new Iraq had back in 1998 when the inspectors were kicked out, are. It works like this, obviously if they still have these weapons, they must show the UN where they are so they can be siezed. If they have in fact destroyed the weapons, they must show the UN the evidence that proves that the weapons were in fact destroyed. Any weapons that were destroyed had to be documented and there would also be physical evidence of any destruction of such weapons.

Inspectors have only gone to handful of sites in driving distance of Baghdad. There are only 100 inspectors to inspect a country the size of France. The amount of inspectors in Iraq at the moment can only verify that weapons are at a particular location or that such weapons have in fact been destroyed at a particular location. The UN team in its current set up, cannot chase Iraqi trucks carrying such materials around the country, nor can they search the basement of every Mosque, Iraqi house, or building or every square inch of every square mile of desert where Iraq could hide such weapons. Iraq is failing to show whether several weapons from the 1998 list are. They claim that they have destroyed them and that they also destroyed any evidence of such weapons which is total rubish! If they have in fact destroyed the weapons, show the UN inspectors the evidence. Its very simple.

Iraq has lied at every single turn in the road. It is crazy that anyone would trust Saddam's word on anything without verifying that it is in fact so scientifically.

If Iraq wants to hide weapons that were on the list from 1998 and not show where they are, or the evidence of their destruction, then the UN will have no choice but to use military action to make sure that they are disarmed and that all UN resolutions passed under chapter 7 rules are finally complied with.

So again if Iraq wants to prove they do not have weapons, first stick to the original UN documents from 1998 and don't produce a fabricated report that leaves off all different kinds of weapons. If such weapons were in fact destroyed between 1998 and 2002, let the UN see the evidence of this destruction.

No other country has lied as often as Iraq has and been given more chances, time and again, to come clean than Iraq.

As far as being guilty until proven innocent, remember that back in 1991 Iraq was guilty of having all these weapons. They admitted they had some of these weapons and then were caught lying by inspectors, over the course of 7 years, a few thousand times about other weapons.

Iraq in 1991 is guilty, no one including Iraq today would dispute that. In this case, the only way to move from guilt(1991) to innocence(2002) is for Iraq to prove that they are innocent by dotting every i and crossing every t when it comes to questions or holes in reporting their past WMD program. If the weapon system was in fact destroyed, show the inspectors the evidence that it was destroyed!

Iraq signed and agreed that THEY must prove that they no longer have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has failed to do this.

Iraq's current excuse "the dog ate my homework" will not prove that Iraq no longer has such weapons.

STING2 · 12-22-2002, 01:10 AM

Popmartian,

"Chapter 6 or chapter 7, it doesn't say anything about severity. It only says if you have powerful friends who let you keep bullying others or not."

Well thats the United Nations that so many in this forum claimed the USA was not cooperating with. If you do not like the United Nations and say to hell with it, then the USA can form a coalition outside the United Nations in order to defend itself and its allies.

There is no comparison between the actions the Israeli's took in 1967, clearly in self-defense, and the actions Iraq took in 1990/1991 against Kuwait, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. There was clear evidence that the Arab armies from several countries were about to launch a full scale invasion against Israel(in 1967) which would have overrun the country. Only pre-emtive action by Israel prevented that and another holocaust from happening.

How many people here think Kuwaits 20,000 man army was about to attack Iraq's 1,000,000 man army in the summer of 1990?

Rono · 12-22-2002, 09:20 AM

What happend to the 8.000 pages ?

http://www.sundayherald.com/30195

STING2 · 12-22-2002, 05:20 PM

This is what happened:

"Although the five permanent members of the security council -- the US, the UK, France, China and Russia -- have had access to the complete version, there was agreement that the US be allowed to edit the dossier on the ground that its contents were 'risky' in terms of security on weapons proliferation."

Syria, a current member of the Security Council, should not have the opportunity to read something that goes into great detail about the building of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Syria is an inch away from being apart of the "Axis Of Evil" despite their vote of support for Bush's resolution.

12-21-2002, 03:50 PM	#41
FizzingWhizzbees ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: the choirgirl hotel Posts: 12,614 Local Time: 03:15 PM	Just out of interest...say the weapons inspectors report back that they found nothing in Iraq. Would you believe them? Or would some people still insist that they just hadn't looked in the right place or something? ie - it seems that some people have already decided Iraq is guilty...would you accept any proof to the contrary, or are you so convinced that you think the only solution is to attack them regardless? __________________

12-22-2002, 05:20 PM	#51
STING2 Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 8,876 Local Time: 03:15 PM	This is what happened: "Although the five permanent members of the security council -- the US, the UK, France, China and Russia -- have had access to the complete version, there was agreement that the US be allowed to edit the dossier on the ground that its contents were 'risky' in terms of security on weapons proliferation." Syria, a current member of the Security Council, should not have the opportunity to read something that goes into great detail about the building of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Syria is an inch away from being apart of the "Axis Of Evil" despite their vote of support for Bush's resolution. __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-21-2002, 04:08 PM	#43
STING2 Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 8,876 Local Time: 03:15 PM	I don't have time to respond fully at the moment but I just wanted to say that it is not incumbent on the UN to prove that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, it is incumbent on Iraq to prove that they do not have weapons of mass destruction and for the UN to verify whether that is an established fact. There are a vast number of weapons missing from the list that Iraq produced recently. Iraq claims that they were destroyed and then like a child claiming "the dog ate my homework" claims that they destroyed the evidence of the destruction of the weapons. There would be considerable evidence of any destruction of such a large amount of weapons, and if Iraq does not show this evidence if it is in fact so they destroyed the weapons, one has to assume that the weapons still exist. People should remember that it was Iraq that invaded Kuwait and with the Ceacefire of the Gulf War agreed to all the terms set down by the coalition including giving up all their weapons of mass destruction and providing the proof that they have done so. Iraq has yet to prove that they have destroyed all their weapons of mass destruction, and unless they do, Iraq will have to be disarmed by military force!

12-21-2002, 04:48 PM	#47
Dreadsox ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 10,885 Local Time: 10:15 AM	Fizz, Do you believe that if he had the weapons, he destroyed them, and now cannot prove it? Peace

12-22-2002, 12:56 AM	#48
STING2 Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 8,876 Local Time: 03:15 PM	If Saddam wants to come clean, he has to show where the weapons that were not included on the 12,000 page report, that the UN new Iraq had back in 1998 when the inspectors were kicked out, are. It works like this, obviously if they still have these weapons, they must show the UN where they are so they can be siezed. If they have in fact destroyed the weapons, they must show the UN the evidence that proves that the weapons were in fact destroyed. Any weapons that were destroyed had to be documented and there would also be physical evidence of any destruction of such weapons. Inspectors have only gone to handful of sites in driving distance of Baghdad. There are only 100 inspectors to inspect a country the size of France. The amount of inspectors in Iraq at the moment can only verify that weapons are at a particular location or that such weapons have in fact been destroyed at a particular location. The UN team in its current set up, cannot chase Iraqi trucks carrying such materials around the country, nor can they search the basement of every Mosque, Iraqi house, or building or every square inch of every square mile of desert where Iraq could hide such weapons. Iraq is failing to show whether several weapons from the 1998 list are. They claim that they have destroyed them and that they also destroyed any evidence of such weapons which is total rubish! If they have in fact destroyed the weapons, show the UN inspectors the evidence. Its very simple. Iraq has lied at every single turn in the road. It is crazy that anyone would trust Saddam's word on anything without verifying that it is in fact so scientifically. If Iraq wants to hide weapons that were on the list from 1998 and not show where they are, or the evidence of their destruction, then the UN will have no choice but to use military action to make sure that they are disarmed and that all UN resolutions passed under chapter 7 rules are finally complied with. So again if Iraq wants to prove they do not have weapons, first stick to the original UN documents from 1998 and don't produce a fabricated report that leaves off all different kinds of weapons. If such weapons were in fact destroyed between 1998 and 2002, let the UN see the evidence of this destruction. No other country has lied as often as Iraq has and been given more chances, time and again, to come clean than Iraq. As far as being guilty until proven innocent, remember that back in 1991 Iraq was guilty of having all these weapons. They admitted they had some of these weapons and then were caught lying by inspectors, over the course of 7 years, a few thousand times about other weapons. Iraq in 1991 is guilty, no one including Iraq today would dispute that. In this case, the only way to move from guilt(1991) to innocence(2002) is for Iraq to prove that they are innocent by dotting every i and crossing every t when it comes to questions or holes in reporting their past WMD program. If the weapon system was in fact destroyed, show the inspectors the evidence that it was destroyed! Iraq signed and agreed that THEY must prove that they no longer have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has failed to do this. Iraq's current excuse "the dog ate my homework" will not prove that Iraq no longer has such weapons.

12-22-2002, 01:10 AM	#49
STING2 Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 8,876 Local Time: 03:15 PM	Popmartian, "Chapter 6 or chapter 7, it doesn't say anything about severity. It only says if you have powerful friends who let you keep bullying others or not." Well thats the United Nations that so many in this forum claimed the USA was not cooperating with. If you do not like the United Nations and say to hell with it, then the USA can form a coalition outside the United Nations in order to defend itself and its allies. There is no comparison between the actions the Israeli's took in 1967, clearly in self-defense, and the actions Iraq took in 1990/1991 against Kuwait, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. There was clear evidence that the Arab armies from several countries were about to launch a full scale invasion against Israel(in 1967) which would have overrun the country. Only pre-emtive action by Israel prevented that and another holocaust from happening. How many people here think Kuwaits 20,000 man army was about to attack Iraq's 1,000,000 man army in the summer of 1990?

12-22-2002, 09:20 AM	#50
Rono Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: the Netherlands Posts: 6,163 Local Time: 04:15 PM	What happend to the 8.000 pages ? http://www.sundayherald.com/30195