"Anti-Iraq War" Flaws

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: snowwie
well, they are bordered, and most of the country was essentially pistachio orchards and huge oil pipelines coming from Iraq. I think they shared oil, or something

syria also has very little. the pipelines are reletively new and I saw construction of more
iraq only has to give syria a nudge and syria complies

they share similar interests, like the destruction of israel

along the border of syria and lebanon are terrorist camps, such as hamas and hezbollah (you can see the flag with fist holding an AK-47 from the road)
They are supported by the syrian gov't, as syria has a poor military

I have no doubt that Iraq (whether directly or indirectly) supports these camps as well

it just the general impression I got when I was there

I now hear that Saddam sent his family to syria for safekeeping, and he will use syria to flee to when he has no last resort (he doesn't want o be caught)

Cheers,

Andy

 

[conjur]

Gaard

Hans Blix' report (from Washington Post)

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Gaard

Hans Blix' report (from Washington Post)

These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared. There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



how about we change the KNOWN WMD to the POSSIBLE WMD? Hell, I wouldn't even have a problem with the PROBABLE WMD.

 

[conjur]

Wouldn't have to do with the fact Blix was trying for job security, would it?

Resolution 1441 called for unambiguous proof that the WMD were destroyed. No evidence was proferred and Hans has admitted the inspectors were misled and fooled on more than one occasion.

 

[Gaard]

I said "What WMD?"

You said "Read Blix's report."

I said "The report says These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq"

You said "Yeah but, he wanted job security."


Honest opinion wanted here. Which is more accurate? Saddam has WMD or Saddam probably has WMD?

 

[Morph]

Thank you, Gaard.

There you have it. No conclusive proof that any WMD exist, just conjecture that they might still exist. The only real way to PROVE that they exist is to FIND them. Simple concept, isn't it?

Here's a good read for you all:

No Sign Yet of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve days into the invasion of Iraq, there is no sign of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction, the primary rationale for the U.S.-led war now pummeling the country.
...
"It's impossible to prove a negative, but Iraq maintained that its weapons were destroyed and the U.S. maintained Iraq was lying. That's what this war was supposed to be about," said Jon Wolfsthal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
...
The Washington Post reported on Sunday that U.S. special forces had already pursued their 10 best intelligence leads in Iraq but came up dry at each location.
...
But U.S. officials are leaving themselves wiggle room in case the weapons do not materialize. Rumsfeld said "dozens of trucks" had been seen moving things out of one facility, "so there may be nothing left."
...
Even if WMD are found in Iraq, Bush could have a problem -- convincing a skeptical, often hostile world the United States did not "plant" the arms to justify its case against Saddam. For that reason, key European leaders have urged Washington to involve U.N. inspectors in the hunt, something U.S. officials oppose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The last part I quoted is important. If the US believes they are going to find WMD and they really want the rest of the world to trust these findings, they should have some UN inspectors on hand in Iraq. As it is, it will be hard to trust anything they find. It's obvious that the administration desperately needs to find something, which may lead to them planting evidence if they have to.

 

[conjur]

His report states that the biological and chemical agents are unaccounted for and in some cases, there is documentation that more was produced than originally declared. The fact that Blix used terms like 'assume' doesn't mean they don't exist. Resolution 1441 stated all banned substances/equipment MUST be declared, unconditionally. That did not happen per the content of his report. Saddam was to prove he had destroyed the substances/equipment.

Blix also had information in his report that has since been declassified that revealed the existence of missiles beyond allowed capabilities and the existence of banned equipment (drones).

 

[Morph]

Originally posted by: conjur
His report states that the biological and chemical agents are unaccounted for and in some cases, there is documentation that more was produced than originally declared. The fact that Blix used terms like 'assume' doesn't mean they don't exist. Resolution 1441 stated all banned substances/equipment MUST be declared, unconditionally. That did not happen per the content of his report. Saddam was to prove he had destroyed the substances/equipment.

Stop babbling. Give specifics. Your case is very weak.

Blix also had information in his report that has since been declassified that revealed the existence of missiles beyond allowed capabilities and the existence of banned equipment (drones).

Spy drones- Ah, you mean the balsa wood RC planes? In that case, there's a lot of hobbyists in our country that need to be arrested immediately for possessing potential WMD.

Missiles beyond allowed capabilities- Oh, you mean the ones that Iraq was in the process of destroying when they were so rudely disrupted by an invading army?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: conjur
His report states that the biological and chemical agents are unaccounted for and in some cases, there is documentation that more was produced than originally declared. The fact that Blix used terms like 'assume' doesn't mean they don't exist. Resolution 1441 stated all banned substances/equipment MUST be declared, unconditionally. That did not happen per the content of his report. Saddam was to prove he had destroyed the substances/equipment.

Blix also had information in his report that has since been declassified that revealed the existence of missiles beyond allowed capabilities and the existence of banned equipment (drones).

Please Conjur. I'm not debating whether or not he has banned weapons. I'm simply saying that to say KNOWN WMD isn't really accurate. He very well may have them. I might even say that he probably does. But a possibility, even a probability, isn't a certainty. Do you dispute this. Honestly, Conjur, why do you think that it's somehow detrimental to your cause...or that it may be shameful somehow in admitting that. There is no shame in it, Conjur. And if you say "yes, you are right, there is no PROOF, only really good indications" you aren't in any way betraying the cause.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Well, playing devils advocate here but:

Because you've stockpiled them over the years.
Because your afraid of chemical attack.

There are other reasons to consider, however remote you may believe they are.

Cheers,

Andy

Chemical Attack? From whom? Yourself! Hahahah! Yea, I am sure they just have Anti-Nerve medications and Gas Masks and Suits just incase something happens....

Well, Iran and Syria to start with.

Have a look at this site. (Federation of American Scientists)

Cheers,

Andy

Iran and Syria doesnt have a entire UN Resolution on them concerning Biological and Chemical Weapons do they?

 

[conjur]

Resolution 687 (1991):
8. Decides that shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision,
of:

All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

Resolution 1441 (2002):
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);


That's the UN stating Iraq is in material breach of Resolution 687. It's not just some agenda Bush cooked up.

 

[vicvon]

OH WELL

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Please Conjur. I'm not debating whether or not he has banned weapons. I'm simply saying that to say KNOWN WMD isn't really accurate. He very well may have them. I might even say that he probably does. But a possibility, even a probability, isn't a certainty. Do you dispute this. Honestly, Conjur, why do you think that it's somehow detrimental to your cause...or that it may be shameful somehow in admitting that. There is no shame in it, Conjur. And if you say "yes, you are right, there is no PROOF, only really good indications" you aren't in any way betraying the cause.

Because I truly believe, Gaard, that he does have them and I feel...yes...a gut feel...that Blix worded his report in order to make it very difficult for the United States to authorize force to disarm Saddam and enforce the previous 12 years' worth of resolutions.

And, yes, there are records of various countries selling him the components/substances so we know they were there. And if Saddam cannot provide proof that they were destroyed that leaves one to conclude that they were NOT destroyed. I, for once, certainly don't put any faith in anything that comes out of his mouth.

 

[wetcat007]

Hmm, those who get the most of something first get to take away those who get it later, such as the missles iraq has, russia us and such are all able to have them, so why only certain countries?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: wetcat007
Hmm, those who get the most of something first get to take away those who get it later, such as the missles iraq has, russia us and such are all able to have them, so why only certain countries?

Well, in the case of Iraq, Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991 and that triggered quite a mess, eh? 17 UN resolutions were drafted including conditions in the cease-fire agreement in 1991 for Saddam to destroy bio/chem weapons and destroy missiles with certain capabilities. He did not do so and evaded the UN for a dozen years and Bush finally called his bluffs.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Well, playing devils advocate here but:

Because you've stockpiled them over the years.
Because your afraid of chemical attack.

There are other reasons to consider, however remote you may believe they are.

Cheers,

Andy

Chemical Attack? From whom? Yourself! Hahahah! Yea, I am sure they just have Anti-Nerve medications and Gas Masks and Suits just incase something happens....

Well, Iran and Syria to start with.

Have a look at this site. (Federation of American Scientists)

Cheers,

Andy

Iran and Syria doesnt have a entire UN Resolution on them concerning Biological and Chemical Weapons do they?

Not that I know of - but I don't see how that point relates to the debate I've been having that you quoted above?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[syzygy]

I'm not debating whether or not he has banned weapons. I'm simply saying that to say KNOWN WMD isn't really accurate. He very well may have them. I might even say that he probably does. But a possibility, even a probability, isn't a certainty. Do you dispute this. Honestly, Conjur, why do you think that it's somehow detrimental to your cause...or that it may be shameful somehow in admitting that. There is no shame in it, Conjur. And if you say "yes, you are right, there is no PROOF, only really good indications" you aren't in any way betraying the cause.

to say 'known wmd' is thoroughly accurate. saddam and company presented the west with a number, the number of wmds they claimed
to possesse. in 1998, iraq claimed to have destroyed every wmd in their possession, although they said nothing of critical production
facilites and any precursors.

very simply. do you believe saddam ? did he truthfully destroy his wmd, as delcared, and all production facilites and stockpiled precursors,
which he did not declare ?

when the u.n., u.s., e.u., and others asked for proof, why was none forthcoming ?

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: Staley8
Trezza - funny stuff with that Metallica bit. Hopefully that analogy will help some people understand exactly what has happened and what is happening now.

Offtopic - WooHoo post #100

Except the following was left out..
Metalica: We'll wait for the court inspector to examine CU's hardrive.
Court Inspector: There are too many files on the hardrive. We need several months to comb thru it.
Metalica: We are not waiting several months. We're breaking into to CU's house right now to trash his system.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: seawolf21

Originally posted by: Staley8
Trezza - funny stuff with that Metallica bit. Hopefully that analogy will help some people understand exactly what has happened and what is happening now.

Offtopic - WooHoo post #100

Except the following was left out..
Metalica: We'll wait for the court inspector to examine CU's hardrive.
Court Inspector: There are too many files on the hardrive. We need several months to comb thru it.
Metalica: We are not waiting several months. We're breaking into to CU's house right now to trash his system.

You left out this part:

CU: We welcome the Court Inspectors!
CI: Hey, how about some proof showing us that you've eliminated any remaining MP3's.
CU: What MP3's.
CI: The MP3's that we know you used to have, and that you said you destroyed.
CU: What's an MP3?
CU: Just kidding. Here's an old floppy disk with a WAV file on it.
CI: Where's the MP3 stuff? We're search your Napster folder tomorrow.
CU: <moves contents of Napster folder> See! It's empty!

 

[Morph]

Originally posted by: seawolf21
Except the following was left out..
Metalica: We'll wait for the court inspector to examine CU's hardrive.
Court Inspector: There are too many files on the hardrive. We need several months to comb thru it.
Metalica: We are not waiting several months. We're breaking into to CU's house right now to trash his system.

LOL

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: syzygy

I'm not debating whether or not he has banned weapons. I'm simply saying that to say KNOWN WMD isn't really accurate. He very well may have them. I might even say that he probably does. But a possibility, even a probability, isn't a certainty. Do you dispute this. Honestly, Conjur, why do you think that it's somehow detrimental to your cause...or that it may be shameful somehow in admitting that. There is no shame in it, Conjur. And if you say "yes, you are right, there is no PROOF, only really good indications" you aren't in any way betraying the cause.

to say 'known wmd' is thoroughly accurate. saddam and company presented the west with a number, the number of wmds they claimed
to possesse. in 1998, iraq claimed to have destroyed every wmd in their possession, although they said nothing of critical production
facilites and any precursors.

very simply. do you believe saddam ? did he truthfully destroy his wmd, as delcared, and all production facilites and stockpiled precursors,
which he did not declare ?

when the u.n., u.s., e.u., and others asked for proof, why was none forthcoming ?

It's not a question of whether or not I believe Saddam. Apparently, I'm the only one here who knows what the definition of certainty is. Gut feelings and no evidence to the contrary does not equal that he positively has WMD. I myself would not be surprised at all if it's discovered that he does possess WMD, however I won't say known WMD until I am certain he has them. For those of you who say that you are certain...know for a fact...that he has them, that's the same as religious folk saying that they know for a fact that there's a God.

 

[Trezza]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: syzygy

I'm not debating whether or not he has banned weapons. I'm simply saying that to say KNOWN WMD isn't really accurate. He very well may have them. I might even say that he probably does. But a possibility, even a probability, isn't a certainty. Do you dispute this. Honestly, Conjur, why do you think that it's somehow detrimental to your cause...or that it may be shameful somehow in admitting that. There is no shame in it, Conjur. And if you say "yes, you are right, there is no PROOF, only really good indications" you aren't in any way betraying the cause.

to say 'known wmd' is thoroughly accurate. saddam and company presented the west with a number, the number of wmds they claimed
to possesse. in 1998, iraq claimed to have destroyed every wmd in their possession, although they said nothing of critical production
facilites and any precursors.

very simply. do you believe saddam ? did he truthfully destroy his wmd, as delcared, and all production facilites and stockpiled precursors,
which he did not declare ?

when the u.n., u.s., e.u., and others asked for proof, why was none forthcoming ?

It's not a question of whether or not I believe Saddam. Apparently, I'm the only one here who knows what the definition of certainty is. Gut feelings and no evidence to the contrary does not equal that he positively has WMD. I myself would not be surprised at all if it's discovered that he does possess WMD, however I won't say known WMD until I am certain he has them. For those of you who say that you are certain...know for a fact...that he has them, that's the same as religious folk saying that they know for a fact that there's a God.

The fact of the matter is he has weapons / weapon systems he wasn;t allowed to have. This voids the cease fire agreement. Therefore we are at a state of war. WMD are just the largest and most dangerous items that he was not allowed to have.

If you understand that statement you understand why we are at war. Saddam is a liar and will continue to lie til he is strong enough to strike its enemies.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Trezza

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: syzygy

I'm not debating whether or not he has banned weapons. I'm simply saying that to say KNOWN WMD isn't really accurate. He very well may have them. I might even say that he probably does. But a possibility, even a probability, isn't a certainty. Do you dispute this. Honestly, Conjur, why do you think that it's somehow detrimental to your cause...or that it may be shameful somehow in admitting that. There is no shame in it, Conjur. And if you say "yes, you are right, there is no PROOF, only really good indications" you aren't in any way betraying the cause.

to say 'known wmd' is thoroughly accurate. saddam and company presented the west with a number, the number of wmds they claimed
to possesse. in 1998, iraq claimed to have destroyed every wmd in their possession, although they said nothing of critical production
facilites and any precursors.

very simply. do you believe saddam ? did he truthfully destroy his wmd, as delcared, and all production facilites and stockpiled precursors,
which he did not declare ?

when the u.n., u.s., e.u., and others asked for proof, why was none forthcoming ?

It's not a question of whether or not I believe Saddam. Apparently, I'm the only one here who knows what the definition of certainty is. Gut feelings and no evidence to the contrary does not equal that he positively has WMD. I myself would not be surprised at all if it's discovered that he does possess WMD, however I won't say known WMD until I am certain he has them. For those of you who say that you are certain...know for a fact...that he has them, that's the same as religious folk saying that they know for a fact that there's a God.

The fact of the matter is he has weapons / weapon systems he wasn;t allowed to have. This voids the cease fire agreement. Therefore we are at a state of war. WMD are just the largest and most dangerous items that he was not allowed to have.

If you understand that statement you understand why we are at war. Saddam is a liar and will continue to lie til he is strong enough to strike its enemies.

Your entire post has nothing...absolutely nothing to do with my post. I'm not debating whether or not he has banned weapons, nor am I debating whether or not he has violated UN resolutions.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: conjur
Resolution 687 (1991):
8. Decides that shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision,
of:

All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

Resolution 1441 (2002):
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);


That's the UN stating Iraq is in material breach of Resolution 687. It's not just some agenda Bush cooked up.

You forgot to quote, right under Resolution 1441 item 1:

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;


Last time I checked, UN was still doing the enhanced inspection AND have not found WMD before US/UK started the war.

 

[Trezza]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Trezza

Originally posted by: Gaard

It's not a question of whether or not I believe Saddam. Apparently, I'm the only one here who knows what the definition of certainty is. Gut feelings and no evidence to the contrary does not equal that he positively has WMD. I myself would not be surprised at all if it's discovered that he does possess WMD, however I won't say known WMD until I am certain he has them. For those of you who say that you are certain...know for a fact...that he has them, that's the same as religious folk saying that they know for a fact that there's a God.

The fact of the matter is he has weapons / weapon systems he wasn;t allowed to have. This voids the cease fire agreement. Therefore we are at a state of war. WMD are just the largest and most dangerous items that he was not allowed to have.

If you understand that statement you understand why we are at war. Saddam is a liar and will continue to lie til he is strong enough to strike its enemies.

Your entire post has nothing...absolutely nothing to do with my post. I'm not debating whether or not he has banned weapons, nor am I debating whether or not he has violated UN resolutions.

No my post has everything to do with your post. As I stated in it WMD are only one part of his violations. Your question of certainty is silly at best because it depends on whose perspective you are looking from. White House and Coalition say most certainly he has WMD, people against says no way. There is no public proof from anyone that says either way there is or isn't.