Nuclear chief: No "smoking gun" in Iraq

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Why do they keep making news about not finding something?

Why not just wait until they do find something or the inspections are over?

It's like that episode of the Simpsons.

Homer shouting above an alarm: This alarm will go off every 3 seconds when everything is ok

Tell that to George W. Bush. He just can't wait to get his hands on that oil.

 

[Hamburgerpimp]

want them to keep their mouth shut do their job and report the findings to the UN. If they don't find anything great, if they do find Nuc or WMD

We have to listen to all the rhetorical sh1t the U.S. spews through CNN, Fox, etc everyday.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: SlowSS
Nuclear chief and his people are in search of nuc program.

UNMOVIC are in charge of searching for WMD and UNMOVIC hasn't made any public announcement,
they will report their findings on 27 Jan.

BTW, these guys making all these announcements are just adding fuel to the fire.
And they are appearing to be Iraqi sympathizers rather than in neutral position.
They should withhold any information until they report it to the UN.

"We're not finding anything" = sympathizers?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The Bush Administration's position is that Iraq evicted and terminated inspections before they were complete, therefore has never met its obligations. Can you offer any evidence this is not true?

Actually, we said they were not complying (they said we were spying) . . . of course, we were spying b/c they weren't complying. Anyway, inspectors left on their own recognizance . . . after being told "pull out before the bombing starts". After US/UK bombed Iraq, Saddam refused to allow inspectors to return. The Bush administration position is inconsistent with the facts with one exception . . . Iraq has never met its obligations.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Piano Man
CNN Link

They don't have WMD, and they're not lying. Someone is lying however, and it isn't the Iraqis.

hint

theres one born every second...

I know, and for some reason, they keep being elected President.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS

Originally posted by: Piano Man

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
...

Plus, its VERY hard to prove a negative,

...

That my friend is the problem in a nutshell. Proving that something doesn't exist is theoretically impossible. You can only prove that something DOES exist.

You cannot prove something exists. You can show that something exists, but you cannot prove it exists or not exists.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

They don't have WMD, and they're not lying. Someone is lying however, and it isn't the Iraqis.

The purpose of the inspections is to verify this, which Iraq has endeavored to obstruct and hamper and prevent from day one. The inspections are complete when the UN says they're complete, not when Hussein says they're complete. Iraq will have no WMD or infrastructure when the UN confirms it has none, not when Hussein says they have none.

Reports from the UN inspectors is that the Iraqis are cooperating. Where did you hear anything different?

And I'm not sure what you mean by your implied comment about the Bush Administration lying.

"How do you know when a US President is lying?"

"He moves his lips!"

The Bush Administration's position is that Iraq evicted and terminated inspections before they were complete, therefore has never met its obligations. Can you offer any evidence this is not true?

So? How about the US send some inspectors to the US to look for WMD? Or Israel, since its pretty obvious they do and also pose a threat to their neigbours.

Did the UN weapons inspectors complete their job but the entire world has been lied to by the United Nations?

The UN inspectors are just humouring the Americans. If the Iraqis really did have WMD, the Administration would be pointing out exactly were they are, not playing cat-and-mouse. If you think the Bush's are a trustworthy source for anything, you'd better take a much closer look at that family's history during the past sixty years.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You cannot prove something exists. You can show that something exists, but you cannot prove it exists or not exists.

Please pass your philosophical wisdom on to our President . . . The Bush administration says it has solid evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but feels no obligation to prove its allegations before leading an attack on Baghdad.

Apparently they aren't going to show us either.

 

[tcsenter]

Actually, we said they were not complying (they said we were spying) . . . of course, we were spying b/c they weren't complying.

Right, we wanted to know what all those Iraqi trucks were transporting under the cover of darkness as our satellites caught them departing from an uninspected site often hours before inspectors arrived and traveling to a location which had already been inspected or Hussein refused to allow inspectors into.

The Bush administration position is inconsistent with the facts with one exception . . . Iraq has never met its obligations

That an Iraq has repeatedly pulled out all the stops in an attempt to hamper, frustrate, and obstruct inspections.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

You cannot prove something exists. You can show that something exists, but you cannot prove it exists or not exists.

Please pass your philosophical wisdom on to our President . . . The Bush administration says it has solid evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but feels no obligation to prove its allegations before leading an attack on Baghdad.

Apparently they aren't going to show us either.

I am sure it will be shown when the time is right.

 

[Peetoeng]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

You cannot prove something exists. You can show that something exists, but you cannot prove it exists or not exists.

Please pass your philosophical wisdom on to our President . . . The Bush administration says it has solid evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but feels no obligation to prove its allegations before leading an attack on Baghdad.

Apparently they aren't going to show us either.

The power to declare war is still in the hand of Congress. W has to explain it to the Congress if not the american citizens in general before he could order an attack.

 

[earthman]

You are wrong on several points...Congress has already given Bush the authority to deal with Iraq. Its true Congress has to declare war, but who says Bush will ask for a declaration? Did they declare war in Vietnam? I think its clear he wants Saddam out so the oil can flow, and doesn't need any other excuse.
Whether he will order an attack without UN approval and risk the huge negative fallout remains to be seen. If nothing of signifigance is found, I doubt the UN will authorize any attack.

 

[tcsenter]

Reports from the UN inspectors is that the Iraqis are cooperating. Where did you hear anything different?

haha, you are amusing. NOW Iraq appears to be cooperating, after having how many years of suspended inspections and monitoring to bury goodness knows what under goodness knows how many schools and businesses and houses of Hussein's Lieutenants?

Hey, give me a couple days advanced warning that I'm about to be served with a search warrant and what they will be looking for, and I'll meet the police at the front door with a big smile and open arms. Hell I'd even serve refreshments like coffee and donuts, and hang a big banner out proclaiming "Welcome Warrant Servers!" It would be like one big open house ceremony. Balloons tied to the mail box, the works.

So? How about the US send some inspectors to the US to look for WMD? Or Israel, since its pretty obvious they do and also pose a threat to their neigbours.

That doesn't answer my question: The Bush Administration's position is that Iraq has never met its obligations. Can you offer any evidence this is not true?

 

[Swanny]

Inspectors haven't been there very long. I disagree that it's hard to prove a negative. Instead, it's hard to prove a positive. If I look for a month for the next prime number and don't find anything yet, does that mean that there are no more prime numbers?

 

[SuperTool]

There is no WMD in Iraq, most likely. Or if there is, it's a complet e joke compared to even their next door neighbor, Iran. NK is blackmailing us with their nukes rather shamelessly, but of course another Korean War would not be the quick PR opportunity like this Iraq war would be, could require a draft, and certainly would not be finished by the 2004 election. Basically Bush needs to keep the WoT going, and Iraq is a politically convenient target for a conflict that we know we can win rather quickly. How about taking the money and the troops that this Iraq war would use up and building a real and serious southern border for our own country that people can't just hop over or dig under?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

You cannot prove something exists. You can show that something exists, but you cannot prove it exists or not exists.

Please pass your philosophical wisdom on to our President . . . The Bush administration says it has solid evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but feels no obligation to prove its allegations before leading an attack on Baghdad.

Apparently they aren't going to show us either.

I am sure it will be shown when the time is right.

Any idea when that time is? Seriously.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

You cannot prove something exists. You can show that something exists, but you cannot prove it exists or not exists.

Please pass your philosophical wisdom on to our President . . . The Bush administration says it has solid evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but feels no obligation to prove its allegations before leading an attack on Baghdad.

Apparently they aren't going to show us either.

I am sure it will be shown when the time is right.

Any idea when that time is? Seriously.

No I dont, but probably about the time we start driving to Iraq.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

I think a Yale educated man with access to the entirety of the United States' intelligence is in a better position to make a decision about Iraq and Saddam Hussein than a bunch of overweight JC dropouts who think hating Republicans will help them pick up on the hippy chicks at Starbucks.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Actually, we said they were not complying (they said we were spying) . . . of course, we were spying b/c they weren't complying.

Right, we wanted to know what all those Iraqi trucks were transporting under the cover of darkness as our satellites caught them departing from an uninspected site often hours before inspectors arrived and traveling to a location which had already been inspected or Hussein refused to allow inspectors into.

The Bush administration position is inconsistent with the facts with one exception . . . Iraq has never met its obligations

That an Iraq has repeatedly pulled out all the stops in an attempt to hamper, frustrate, and obstruct inspections.

That was true the first time around, it isn't true this time. Now, if GWB wants to pick a fight, why doesn't he go after N. Korea? They are a threat. Of course, I know why, they'd kick your ass (oh, and they don't have the oil).

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
There is no WMD in Iraq, most likely. Or if there is, it's a complet e joke compared to even their next door neighbor, Iran. NK is blackmailing us with their nukes rather shamelessly, but of course another Korean War would not be the quick PR opportunity like this Iraq war would be, could require a draft, and certainly would not be finished by the 2004 election. Basically Bush needs to keep the WoT going, and Iraq is a politically convenient target for a conflict that we know we can win rather quickly. How about taking the money and the troops that this Iraq war would use up and building a real and serious southern border for our own country that people can't just hop over or dig under?

Have a peek at this:

N. Korea plays Bush like a fiddle

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Reports from the UN inspectors is that the Iraqis are cooperating. Where did you hear anything different?

haha, you are amusing. NOW Iraq appears to be cooperating, after having how many years of suspended inspections and monitoring to bury goodness knows what under goodness knows how many schools and businesses and houses of Hussein's Lieutenants?

Hey, give me a couple days advanced warning that I'm about to be served with a search warrant and what they will be looking for, and I'll meet the police at the front door with a big smile and open arms. Hell I'd even serve refreshments like coffee and donuts, and hang a big banner out proclaiming "Welcome Warrant Servers!" It would be like one big open house ceremony. Balloons tied to the mail box, the works.

So, you have nothing to back up your claim.

So? How about the US send some inspectors to the US to look for WMD? Or Israel, since its pretty obvious they do and also pose a threat to their neigbours.

That doesn't answer my question: The Bush Administration's position is that Iraq has never met its obligations. Can you offer any evidence this is not true?[/quote]

Nor have you mine. The US and Israel haven't met their obligations either, so why should Iraq? What "obligation" in particular are they not meeting to the UN's statisfaction?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

IMHO, the President has a responsibility to explain in detail the necessity of military action. The US pressed for interviewing scientists on the grounds they could provide valuable information on their program. I certainly agree. But clearly our intel sux b/c we don't have enough evidence to reveal 1(one) location and content of WMD program in Iraq.

Personally, it seems like evidence of one would send Saddam scurrying to cover up his others (if not move them).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Actually, we said they were not complying (they said we were spying) . . . of course, we were spying b/c they weren't complying.

Right, we wanted to know what all those Iraqi trucks were transporting under the cover of darkness as our satellites caught them departing from an uninspected site often hours before inspectors arrived and traveling to a location which had already been inspected or Hussein refused to allow inspectors into.

The Bush administration position is inconsistent with the facts with one exception . . . Iraq has never met its obligations

That an Iraq has repeatedly pulled out all the stops in an attempt to hamper, frustrate, and obstruct inspections.

That was true the first time around, it isn't true this time. Now, if GWB wants to pick a fight, why doesn't he go after N. Korea? They are a threat. Of course, I know why, they'd kick your ass (oh, and they don't have the oil).

No we would kick NK arse too. BUt we have much better diplomatic means to deal with NK now.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Actually, we said they were not complying (they said we were spying) . . . of course, we were spying b/c they weren't complying.

Right, we wanted to know what all those Iraqi trucks were transporting under the cover of darkness as our satellites caught them departing from an uninspected site often hours before inspectors arrived and traveling to a location which had already been inspected or Hussein refused to allow inspectors into.

The Bush administration position is inconsistent with the facts with one exception . . . Iraq has never met its obligations

That an Iraq has repeatedly pulled out all the stops in an attempt to hamper, frustrate, and obstruct inspections.

That was true the first time around, it isn't true this time. Now, if GWB wants to pick a fight, why doesn't he go after N. Korea? They are a threat. Of course, I know why, they'd kick your ass (oh, and they don't have the oil).

"That was true the first time around, it isn't true this time."
I assume you have proof...oh you don't...okay well you're speculation is good enough for me.

"Now, if GWB wants to pick a fight, why doesn't he go after N. Korea? They are a threat. Of course, I know why, they'd kick your ass (oh, and they don't have the oil)."
So you're just another American hater? Join the club...it consists of every insecure citizen of countries with inferiority complexes who can't take accountability for their own problems.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I think a Yale educated man with access to the entirety of the United States' intelligence is in a better position to make a decision about Iraq and Saddam Hussein than a bunch of overweight JC dropouts who think hating Republicans will help them pick up on the hippy chicks at Starbucks.

I think a daddy's-boy preppy bought into Yale with a family history of drugs and alcohol and lack of logic nor coherence is in a better position impeached!:disgust: