Saddam fails UN checks

A

Adam

§Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥
Registered Senior Member
WAR with Iraq appeared unavoidable last night after United Nations weapons inspectors dismissed Saddam Hussein's declaration of innocence.

More...
Click to expand...

1)

First, it is not up to Iraq to prove innocence. It is up to the USA to prove Iraq's guilt, wihch it has not yet done.

Bushlogic:
1) I accuse Iraq.
2) Iraq has no evidence of innocence.
3) Iraq is guilty.

This is exactly the same as:
1) I accuse Bush of screwing goats in the past.
2) Bush has no evidence that he has not screwed goats in the past.
3) Bush has screwed goats.

2)

Did anyone ever doubt that the USA would invade and bomb the hell out of Iraq regardless of any evidence anyone found on one side or the other?
 
Adam you ignorant!

don't you know that Bush DID screw goats in Dick Cheneys basement?

Me and the animal liberation front will soon invade the Bush range and set the animals free:p

But Bush was right if he says: "it is a bad day for peace"
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Adam
2)

Did anyone ever doubt that the USA would invade and bomb the hell out of Iraq regardless of any evidence anyone found on one side or the other?
Click to expand...
I do doubt that Bushiii will go all the way no matter how nuts he is. The so call international coalition is US’s propagandize strategy as if the world was stupid.

Bush and his big mouth has picked on the UN as if the UN was just a travel agency, by doing that he’s actually insulting world community. Bushiii should consider paying the pending bills to UN instead of working the mushrooms.

Of course, with continuous build up in Middle East, schedule to be approx. 100, 000 sheep’s by middle of January plus all those Nintendo war games deployed, and his continuous impatience towards the executions of UN resolution. Is putting himself
in a position very hard to safe face if there are not solid arguments for War.

If there is a War, knowing that the majority of Iraqis are lightly armed and approx 30% of the population support Saddam. It is going to turn out very nasty. A great majority that don’t like Saddam, will keep him a lot better then having foreign children with toy-guns running the place. The casualties in the US will be lots, unless of course they lose the patience and opt for nuclearis maximus.

Saddam has a dozen of places to refuge within Iraq, in the worst of scenarios he could temporarily hide in Iran, or even better Syria whom is in a ready position to play a more important role in ME affairs.

All-in-all, looking back at home and our economy that lucks that old surplus from Bill’s era, we will have to endure the consequences. The dollar will go weaker and if we go in alone, no international community will shoulder the bill.

….In the mean time, Bin Laden will continue prospering and Alkaeda will pick own places, and the coalition against terror will suffer as a cause of our abuse and misuse of power.
 
In Afghanistan a pretty succesfull tactic for the usa was to have to bomb the hell out of your enemy from the air while supporting the local factions. This way it was mostly natives that ended up in bodybags.

Now maybe it would be usefull to give fully logistic and material support to the Kurds in thre north and the Shi'it's in the South.

However The US in the past during the Gulf war, did not support the uprise of the Shi'its against Saddam, because of hard feelings from the Khomeiny era...
 
Tactics.

Originally posted by Vortexx
In Afghanistan a pretty succesfull tactic for the usa was to have to bomb the hell out of your enemy from the air while supporting the local factions. This way it was mostly natives that ended up in bodybags.
Click to expand...
Yes, considering the reduce number of casualties on our side, it was in deed a successful campaign. However, the tactics weighted mainly on air power and reducing mano-a-mano confrontations, helped the main target (terrorists) to filter out. Except for a couple Alkaeda leaders and a couple of hundred detained office boys. We are really back to square zero.
The antibiotic didn’t radicalized the decease, instead it has spread, multiply and mutated.
 
Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said there was "relatively little" proof in Iraq's 12,000-page declaration that all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons were destroyed after the 1991 Gulf War.

His statement gives allied forces the evidence needed to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who finds this utterly hilarious?

Microzoft:
If there is a War, knowing that the majority of Iraqis are lightly armed and approx 30% of the population support Saddam. It is going to turn out very nasty. A great majority that don’t like Saddam, will keep him a lot better then having foreign children with toy-guns running the place. The casualties in the US will be lots, unless of course they lose the patience and opt for nuclearis maximus.
Click to expand...

You're assuming a ground war would be fought. Doubtful.

I have this weird feeling that after six to eight months of bombing what are ostensibly military targets, we'll declare the war a success but that the fight on terror is still ongoing....sound familiar?
 
Originally posted by Asguard
i have to say i would LOVE to see the US beaten

then what r u going to do?
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for the fact that I would almost certainly be involved in the repercussions, I would hope that stupid people such as yourself would get your wish. You deserve it.
 
First, it is not up to Iraq to prove innocence. It is up to the USA to prove Iraq's guilt,....
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

In fact, UN Security Council Resolution 1441 states:
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons[/b], components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statments or ommissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implimentation of, this resolution shall constitute a material breach of Iraq's obligations....
Click to expand...

It is Iraq's burden to tell the Security Council where to find anything and everything, and not the inspectors' burden to discover it.

Nor does the resolution say anything about the obligations of the US to prove its claims.
 
War solved Iraq's illegal occupation of Kuwait, after asking them nicely to 'please leave' didn't solve the matter.
 
Originally posted by Adam
1)
First, it is not up to Iraq to prove innocence. It is up to the USA to prove Iraq's guilt, wihch it has not yet done.
Click to expand...

Personally i think its kind of fitting how they are presuming him guilty, after all in iraq you are guilty until proven innocent. It is the same way in many countries, including members of the UN.

Anyway we absolutly know he HAD them and was working to get more and worse ones. That in itself, in my eyes, is enough to warrant Saddam's drawing and quartering.

Being a dictator the responsibility of anything that happens in Iraq falls on his head. He can not blame due process, a previous aministration, or an evil underling because they either dont exist or they report directly to him. For the Iraqi human rights invasions alone we have the right to take him out.

As for the war solves nothing post, it does have its uses. In WW2 the allies solved one big problem by invading germany. In the civil war it solved the problem (or at least helped ease) the problem of slavery and state insubordination. Please, tell me: Would you perfer a Europe still run by nazis to what you have now?
 
Last edited:
First of all, before any kind of invasion takes place, I would like Bush to show us all this "proof" that he has gathered. I'm sure it would make the lives of the UN weapons inspectors a lot easier. Also, comparing the upcoming war with Iraq to WWII makes very little sense. In WWII the Nazis were the clear aggressors. If we attack Iraq without at least a smidgen of proof that they have been fudging their data, what do you think? As far as human rights violations go, we should probably go farther in creating a world court. Invading a country and killings tens of thousands of citizens doesn't sound like something that the people would like all that much. Also, regarding many of his violations (gassing the kurds and using chemical weapons) he was the "evil underling" of the United states. He continued to recieve support from us up until he attacked Kuwait, which he thought he was justified in doing anyways.
 
One thing at a time!

Originally posted by Mr. G
Incorrect.

In fact, UN Security Council Resolution 1441 states:

It is Iraq's burden to tell the Security Council where to find anything and everything, and not the inspectors' burden to discover it.
Nor does the resolution say anything about the obligations of the US to prove its claims.
Click to expand...
Yes! And Iraq has told the Security Council what they have, and the Weapons Inspector are there to also check the accuracy of that Iraqi report. And the US is not there to instigate as if they knew better.
Very simple, those who say that Iraq has this o that, should step forward with facts and prove it, instead of using speculations and propaganda. Let’s us not forget that disliking the US government is not a crime.

US has always being saying that the can prove their claims. England also is being saying that, except that when requested for solid evidence, the British send the UN to collect it from the US (British have nothing). In the first wave of high intelligent documents from the US given to Weapons Inspectors, nothing but satellite pictures with underlines, suspected location, maybe that, and maybe this, ….ridiculous.

In summary, Iraq has complied with the resolution as far as reporting is concerned, if any nation believes otherwise, they should stop the childish propaganda, and probe the violations. As simple as that!
 
I don’t assume anything.

Originally posted by Xev
Am I the only one who finds this utterly hilarious?

Microzoft:

You're assuming a ground war would be fought. Doubtful.
Click to expand...
No, for the case of Iraq I don’t assume anything since it is nothing compared to Afghanistan and it is not desert storm since at this point in time we are not faced with a country invading another country.
In Desert Storm the main objective was to return Kuwait to the Kuwaitis. Now we are talking about getting read of a president of a sovereign country and a good old friend of US in the 80’s. This is a total different scenario since we are not defending but attacking.

True that air power will be used, and surely we will wipe out SAM’s locations, and most of the presidential guard’s infrastructure. We may even and fanatically hit the electric power supply, drinking water facilities, etc. …But you’ll need to take Baghdad by the balls in order to establish a temporary regime. Even if the GI’s (10,000) or so manage to occupy the central government locations, the situation in the capital will be very volatile, what’s next,

…Does anyone think that under a volatile and insecure scenario the 50 member group of deposed Iraqi Opposition will establish base in Iraq??? Tooooooo risky!!

I have lived in Iraq and I do feel that US and British against Saddam is going to be good only for the books.
 
I don't approve of invading a sovereign nation on the basis that it <i>might</i> have chemical weapons which it has not declared, even if that nation is Iraq.

The US had better provide a smoking gun if it wants justifiable international support.
 
Iraq has complied with the resolution as far as reporting is concerned, if any nation believes otherwise, they should stop the childish propaganda, and probe the violations.
Click to expand...
Iraqis who worked in WMD programs, or where in Hussein's own family and had inside information, themselves have described Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs.

Those who believe that Iraq has "complied with the resolution as far as reporting is concerned" should be able to produce the evidence--prove--that no Iraqi has any knowledge of Iraqi WMD progams and that those Iraqis' anecdotal testimonies are material fabrications.

You see how the logic works in reverse?

Until the US produces hard evidence to support its claim(s), one should be able to grant as much benefit-of-a-doubt to it, its appreciation of the efficacies of producing such evidences, and that it will do so--at the appropriate time and place--as is being granted Hussein's "reporting compliance" (the veracity of which has yet to be demonstrated).

Innocent until proven guilty, and all, you know?
 
Originally posted by James R
I don't approve of invading a sovereign nation...
Click to expand...

I do not believe any nondemocratic society can possibly be a soverign nation. I think of it more as a hostage situation.
 
James R: I don't approve of invading a sovereign nation...
Click to expand...
So, you and your fellow citizens are proposing to leave Australia and return it to its rightful aboriginal owners?

I didn't think so.

Glass houses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top