War, Casualties, Saddam, Bush, Etc.

[budullewraagh]

he decided to comply again about 2 months before war.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Iraq's "evil" now is it?

Saddam is.

 

"Ha, you vandalized! There goes your hands! Ha! You cursed at me! Say goodbye to your tongue! Ha! You stole something! Excessive radiation treatment for you!"

 

The radiation is true. They took radiation guns for cancer treatment and pointed them at the prisoners, then left them on for a long time. Eeew.

[budullewraagh]

yeah but you dont find the united states to be acting in an evil way?

[newbie]

yeah but you dont find the united states to be acting in an evil way?

 

Why no I don't, do you?

[Sayonara]

Saddam is.

You were quite clearly talking about countries and not leaders before - Saddam is not the same thing as "Iraq".

 

You can tell the difference between them because one of them is a person (which is very very small) and one of them is a country (which is very very big).

[atinymonkey]

The radiation is true. They took radiation guns for cancer treatment and pointed them at the prisoners' date=' then left them on for a long time. Eeew.[/quote']

 

I find this ironic. Don't you remember the US eugenics program?

[Pangloss]

I find this ironic. Don't you remember the US eugenics program?

 

I do. It ended with Khan Noonian Singh taking over the world and was quickly followed by a nuclear armageddon. The governments of the world collapsed, but then a guy in Montana came up with warp drive just before the Vulcans showed up.

[atinymonkey]

Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!11112222

[Phi for All]

yeah but you dont find the united states to be acting in an evil way?

Abu Ghraib. We saw some pretty evil things being done to prisoners.

 

What were they smart enough to keep secret, away from the cameras?

[budullewraagh]

Why no I don't, do you?

abu ghraib? mass killings of innocents? unjustified attacks on nations?

[blike]

he decided to comply again about 2 months before war.

 

Can you provide support for that? I'm doing a quick search and I can't seem to find anything.

 

abu ghraib? mass killings of innocents? unjustified attacks on nations?

 

Ahh here we go again. At least you've stopped the "hundreds of thousands slaughtered" bit you were running around screaming a few weeks ago. Abu Gharab was a small group of people of which the rest of the country condemned, not a state-supported action. Just because a few horrible people abused some prisoners at Abu Gharab does not mean the United States government or people are evil. While thousands of innocent people have undoubtedly been killed, I think there is a clear distinction between purposefully killing innocent people and accidentally killing innocent people, or heaven help the allies. As sayo mentioned before, it all comes down to justification, which leads us to #3, and that, my friend, is up for debate.

 

I could be wrong here but wasn't the 1991 cease-fire contingent upon Iraq's compliance with all the resolutions?

[budullewraagh]

Can you provide support for that? I'm doing a quick search and I can't seem to find anything.

i could. i remember distinctly hearing about the un being pissed off because iraq wasnt complying, but then hans blix was granted permission to send people into iraq to look around. you cant remember this?

 

i'd look for a source but i have about 10 pages of biology to write about, notes on 30 dense pages of history to take notes on, a bio lab abstract and a third of a book to read.

 

At least you've stopped the "hundreds of thousands slaughtered" bityou were running around screaming a few weeks ago

careful buddy. i respect you, and all i wish for respect in return. i still believe this figure but i did not raise it in order to ward off a trend of digression we continuously revert to. also, in your post, aside from the above, you ignored the "mass killings" part of my post.

 

with regard to abu ghraib, i understand that it is only a few people who did this. at the same time i blame rumsfeld for trying to keep this a secret and for not doing anything about it. more importantly, i believe that these people do represent the united states to many iraqis, which is not a good thing for either side. unfortunately, there is little to nothing we can do. you see, when a company hires somebody to work for it, and that person pisses off customers, the customers tend to dislike the company. same thing with the military.

[blike]

budullewraagh, sorry for getting a bit...sarcastic/rude. I've had a bad day (flu + exam tomorrow + exam today + other crap) and I've been sort of taking it out on everyone. My apologies, I was wrong :\

[Pangloss]

Yeah, they did go back in 2002/early 2003, in the same timeframe as 1441 was being passed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#UNMOVIC_search_2003

 

In a nutshell, they went back in and rooted around a while, found nothing, and Blix gave a report.

 

Hans Blix said in late January 2003 that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm." [long url snipped by Pangloss] He claimed there were some materials which had not been accounted for. Since sites had been found which evidenced the destruction of chemical weaponry, UNSCOM was actively working with Iraq on methods to ascertain for certain whether the amounts destroyed matched up with the amounts that Iraq had produced.

 

Much more detail is available at the URL above. What it basically amounts to is that Blix was the only informed voice saying there was nothing there, and in detail he wasn't even saying that there was nothing there, he was saying that he hadn't found anything.

 

Even to this day Blix will happily confirm that he thought at the time that there was a good chance Iraq did actually have them. His position was that more time should be spent looking for them.

[atinymonkey]

Much more detail is available at the URL above. What it basically amounts to is that Blix was the only informed voice saying there was nothing there' date=' and in detail he wasn't even saying that there was nothing there, he was saying that he hadn't found anything.

 

Even to this day Blix will happily confirm that he thought at the time that there was a good chance Iraq did actually have them. His position was that more time should be spent looking for them.[/quote']

 

A few months ago, Hans Blix was in a town near me attending a international buisness conference. He was one of the guest speakers. He's a surprisingly eloquent man for a Swedish man who's first language is not English and has a formidable CV*. In all possible ways, he stated that he did not believe there were weapons in Iraq. He publicly put his opinions in front of the world leaders and fought Bush in the international press. Let not forget, if it were not for Hans Blix's efforts to speck the truth we would probably have still been ignorant to the lies both Bush and Blair peddled us**. Is was because of Hans Blix that the reasons to invade Iraq were stretched paperthin and eventually discredited. As Kofi Annan has strongly reiterated recently, they were only weeks away from confirming there were no weapons***.

 

*http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/ExecChair/ExeChBi.htm

** (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3326077.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3120046.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3160602.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3665476.stm)

*** (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661640.stm)

[Skye]

I could be wrong here but wasn't the 1991 cease-fire contingent upon Iraq's compliance with all the resolutions?

Yes, but any action taken as a consequence would require a UN resolution, as Kofi Annan said a week ago when he called the war illegal, in reference to the UN charter.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

 

It seems obvious to me that the UN is the only entity justified in deciding when a nation is in breach of the UN's resolutions, and then deciding on the action to take. Legal processes of all kinds would be thrown into chaos if anyone was permitted to arbitrarily pass legal judgement on others and carry out a punishment.

[Pangloss]

I have respect for Blix. I have none for Anan. You won't get far trying to convince me that he actually can put two neurons together in a coherent thought.

 

Anyway, as I said above, Blix wasn't saying there were no weapons in Iraq in Jan/Feb 2003, he was saying he hadn't found any and asking for more time to find them. He also nailed them on new violations, and said that he believed he would find more violations, and possibly WMD stockpiles. He thought they were there, and he's admitted since then that he was wrong.

[atinymonkey]

I have respect for Blix. I have none for Anan. You won't get far trying to convince me that he actually can put two neurons together in a coherent thought.

 

Well, for a start he can spell his own name (Annan). Secondly, despite your convincing evidence to the contrary, he's a very intelligent and highly respected man. Thirdly, nobody particularly cares if you like him or not.

 

Anyway, as I said above, Blix wasn't saying there were no weapons in Iraq in Jan/Feb 2003, he was saying he hadn't found any and asking for more time to find them. He also nailed them on new violations, and said that he believed he would find more violations, and possibly WMD stockpiles. He thought they were there, and he's admitted since then that he was wrong.

 

Either your referring to Blix circa 1997, which is silly, or your completly failing to read what I posted. I even gave evidence timestamped from Blix's very mouth. To suggest he thought weapons existed during his time as weapons inspector is just too silly for words. It was only two years ago, and he was very public about his opinion. It was on the front page of every newspaper in the western world.

 

Where are you getting this misinformation?

[Pangloss]

Secondly, despite your convincing evidence to the contrary, he's a very intelligent and highly respected man.

 

It's probably not a good idea for you to assume I'm not familiar with his background.

 

At any rate, just because someone is smart/respected doesn't mean *I* have to respect him. Why assume I don't have my reasons?

 

We're here to express our opinions, are we not? I'm sorry if you dislike mine, but I see no reason to insult me. I haven't attacked you.

 

 

Thirdly, nobody particularly cares if you like him or not.

 

You do.

 

 

Either your referring to Blix circa 1997, which is silly, or your completly failing to read what I posted.

 

I'm referring to Blix in 2003, and I read your links when you posted them earlier.

 

The link I posted earlier defends my position. But rather than assume you haven't read it, which would be rude, I will simply point out that the site is well documented. He also discusses this at great length in his book "Disarming Iraq". It's a bit dry, but worth reading. You may find his position to be much more complex (and objective) than one might think.

[Skye]

Blix's Feb. 2003 address to the UN.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,895882,00.html

[Pangloss]

Yes, that speech supports my assertion that Blix believed that it was quite possible more weapons existed, and that more time should be spent looking for them. He was, by no means, ready to throw in the towel because they didn't exist. Thanks for passing it along.

 

How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

[r1dermon]

the real question for bush is...who is the enemy? who? can you tell me blike? can anyone tell me who the actual enemy is? for a second i thought it was osama, but, we've spent more time in iraq "liberating" the iraqis than we've spent looking for osama...it has already been stated BY the bush administration that there is no reason to believe that saddam hussein had any connections with al quida. well then, what's this whole iraq thing about? personally, im a little pissed off that two towers fell because some asshole had the bright idea of hi-jacking a couple jets...and personally, im also a little pissed off that we've spent billions of dollars in a different country for different reasons...i bet if you asked bush who the real enemy was, he'd have nothing to say. but it remains to be seen. we'll see if kerry grows a sack before sept 30'th for the 1st debate. until then, we'll just have to wait.

[Douglas]

it has already been stated BY the bush administration that there is no reason to believe that saddam hussein had any connections with al quida.

I believe that the 9/11 commision said that there *was* a connection between Saddam and al-qaeda. BUT, there were no connections between Saddam and 9/11.

[budullewraagh]

there were connections between rumsfeld and hussein...but thats obviously to be swept aside...

[atinymonkey]

It's probably not a good idea for you to assume I'm not familiar with his background.

 

I never made assertion as to your knowledge of Annan, it's really not important. I appreciate being threatened though, so I'll dare you to follow it through "You know almost nothing about the staff at the UN, you can't even spell their names" - there you go, I temp your wrath

 

At any rate' date=' just because someone is smart/respected doesn't mean *I* have to respect him. Why assume I don't have my reasons?

We're here to express our opinions, are we not? I'm sorry if you dislike mine, but I see no reason to insult me. I haven't attacked you. [/quote']

 

If your going to insult someone, for rather random reasons, you can expect defense of that person. I'm sorry if you feel questioning your logic is an insult, I really am surprised you have such a fragile ego.

 

You do.

 

You can't hear me laughing, but I am. I'm also pointing quite a bit too.

 

I'm referring to Blix in 2003, and I read your links when you posted them earlier.

 

Then you are just plain wrong. There is not much further to be said on the subject, but I'll point out that the wiccapedia is not a reliable resource. Anyone with an internet connection can amend the text.

 

The link I posted earlier defends my position.

 

No it doesn't, even if it did it's not a reliable resource. Your reading behind the lines and making assumptions. Blix meant they had not finished searching for weapons, in the same way I haven't finished searching for a bear in my bathroom.

 

But rather than assume you haven't read it, which would be rude, I will simply point out that the site is well documented. He also discusses this at great length in his book "Disarming Iraq". It's a bit dry, but worth reading. You may find his position to be much more complex (and objective) than one might think.

 

Did you even read any of my post, or just skim through it? There is no logical reason to cling on to misinformed opinions, especially in the face of the overwhelming evidence in the form of copious linkage. Either show evidence, or drop it. That doesn't include reference to obscure articles that you might or might not have read that you can't show at the moment. Incidentally, in "Disarming Iraq" Hans Blixs quite pointedly says that there were no weapons apart from small arms and a handful of chemical cartridges from the Iraq / Iran war, and highlights the evidence that Iraq ceased to be a threat in 1997.

Yes, that speech supports my assertion that Blix believed that it was quite possible more weapons existed, and that more time should be spent looking for them. He was, by no means, ready to throw in the towel because they didn't exist.

 

No, Blix said more time should have been spent finishing the search. This is the crux of it all. Blix wanted more time to continue the search, not because he thought there were WOMD but to prove beyond all doubt that there were no WOMD and Iraq was not a threat. He was trying to prevent the slaughter, he was not on a rampage through Iraq to find any evidence to hand to Bush so that he could attack.