I watched the United Nations commit suicide yesterday

[xenophon41]

these steps are not doing the job that needs to be done.

Explain please exactly what “job” that is, and demonstrate how the steps being taken are not doing it.

[Brutus]

Originally posted by noely *
Texican: Would you (logically) also be of the opinion that perhaps Iraq also has the right to act in its own self interests and to also defend itself. ** As for chemical weapons: i wonder which murder hungry country was developing them long before Iraq, i think you’ll find its the same country that sold Iraq its entire war machine in the first place.* Even if Iraq does have WOMD, i would’nt expect them to give them up when the threat of oblivion is a foregone conclusion they believe in their right to exist just as much as America. America needs this war and Saddam knows it, just a different perspective that i haven’t seen raised. i’m not a fan of hussien but i also happen to believe that the agenda of the american government, especially king george the seconds regieme, is something that can be just as suspect.
Go back to bed america your government is in control again!

Do you mean France or Russia? There is not a single American weapon system in the Iraqi inventory.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Texican

Say’s who? The United States of America, led by PRESIDENT George W. Bush, has the right to act in it’s self interest.

[quote]

Says every agreement the US has ever signed with the UN. The agreements entered into with the UN have the same strength of authoririty to the US as our own constitution. International law is American law. Self-interest is, in fact, not a valid justification for an unprovoked invasion of another country. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was in its own self-interest. Try again.

You may recall that we have already been attacked with chemical weapons of a variety that Iraq is known to develop. Just because they have prevented the U.N. from finding them does not change the fact that they are known to have existed. If they had been destroyed, they would have happily provided that evidence. But that has not been the case, has it?

Where do I start? First of all, I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say that the US has been attacked with Iraqi chemical weapons. Cite? Cite, also for the assertion that such weapons are “known to exist,” or that Iraq has "prevented the UN from finding them. Asking Iraq to “prove” that all weapons have been destryed is asking them to prove a negative. Prove you’re not a child molester.

We are not acting under any of the adverbs you have supplied.

Let’s explore those adverbs:

I said
The US simply does not have the authority to arbitrarily, hypocritically and unilaterlly impose its own sanctions on non-compliant nations when it serves some particular president’s political purposes.

It’s arbitrary because we are cherry-picking one country out of many who pose similar or worse threats to the US, or who have violated international laws.
It’s unilateral becuae we are threatening to do it without the support of the UN.
It is hypocritical because we ignore UN violations committed by countries that we like (Israel).

[noely]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
**Do you mean France or Russia? There is not a single American weapon system in the Iraqi inventory. **

Really!!:rolleyes:

[Brutus]

*Originally posted by noely *
**Really!!:rolleyes: **

Yes, really. I challenge you to show me otherwise.

[tomndebb]

Unfortunately, now that all non-military approaches have failed,

Well, except that they have only “failed” in the view of those who are foaming at the mouth to start a war.

He has not used any of the weapons he is purported to have (that he bought from Cheney and company).

He is not in a position to use them wihthout invoking total annihilation on himself.

And we have still failed to produce evidence that he has done anything to give them to third-party terrorists (despite repeated accusations–several of which have been shown to be false).

[GIGObuster]

Brutus, I think noely is talking about quemical weapons, in that regard we have this connection with the US:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52241-2002Dec29.html

[december]

*Originally posted by xenophon41 *
**Cite from Hans Blix for “enormous stockpile”, please? **

I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.

**Chemical weapons **

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.

I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC. The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding.

Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for…

Biological weapons

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.

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered. In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.

Missiles:

I turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that programme or data on the consumption of the missiles.

There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years presented by Iraq as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions. Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/transcripts/blix_012703.html

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

december, your cite seems to contain only questions and suspicions, no actual evidence of anything.

[GIGObuster]

CHemical!

And as for the OP: what Mandelstam said.

On preview: december what I get from that is that the evidence points to possible more weapons and more time is needed to find them, not actual enormeus stockpiles, or an actual approval of war.

[Hank_Fescue]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
**Yes, really. I challenge you to show me otherwise. **

http://www.rense.com/general32/suppe.htm

[DrLizardo]

The UN is about as effectual as this message board. That is to say, it is a lovely debating society that brings up many interesting points: most purely academic.

[Brutus]

*Originally posted by Hank Fescue *
**http://www.rense.com/general32/suppe.htm **

Right now, you should thank GIGOnuster for the somewhat more reliable source of The Washington Post. Which, other then the undetailed report of ‘cluster bombs’, is nothing but lots of speculation.

An Earthlink email to Rense (!!!) is a ‘cite’? Come on now…

[Beagle]

december, your cite seems to contain only questions and suspicions, no actual evidence of anything.

Evidence - Dictionary.com:

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner’s face.
3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

UNSCOM, Blix, Powell, and defectors have given us piles of all three. Which definition of evidence are you using?

[Apos]

—You may recall that we have already been attacked with chemical weapons of a variety that Iraq is known to develop.—

Not that I don’t think Iraq has chemical weapons we need to be worried about… but this is asinine. That was homegrown anthrax, plain and simple. You might as well said that the Oklahoma City bombing used a chemical explosive known to be used by Iraq… in farming.

[Mandelstam]

*Originally posted by DrLizardo *
**The UN is about as effectual as this message board. That is to say, it is a lovely debating society that brings up many interesting points: most purely academic. **

So let me get this straight. The SDMB has the ability wage war as in Korea and to introduce peacekeeping forces into five different continents?

You might want to try checking out the below website before tainting our lovely debating society with ignorant statements

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/home.shtml

[Hank_Fescue]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
**Right now, you should thank GIGOnuster for the somewhat more reliable source of The Washington Post. Which, other then the undetailed report of ‘cluster bombs’, is nothing but lots of speculation.

An Earthlink email to Rense (!!!) is a ‘cite’? Come on now… **

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2766

There are so many cites about our contributions to Iraqi chemical weapons and rockets that I just pick one and throw it out there. They all say the same thing. We helped them develop some pretty nasty weapons. Or is it all a conspiracy?

[DrLizardo]

The statement was not ignorant; a word you should consider before using. One much like the word that comes to mind reading your post: thoughtless.

The UN has never condoned (face it, that’s all they really do) an action (such as those you mention) that wasn’t actually initiated and largely performed by a small group of member states.

As to effectuality of both: I am absolutely NOT proposing that the folks here can’t go take actions on their own, can’t try to convince others here to join them, or even that actions of people here might not have been influenced by what goes on here (e.g. boycotting product X for some perceived wrong). THAT would be ignorant.

It’s a lovely piece of real estate they’re sitting on (with thumbs in posteriors)… I think it’s high time the city of New York had it back to put it to some REAL use.

[smiling_bandit]

the point is that Iraq’s compliance or non-compliance is an issue for the UN to deal with, not Georgie Jr… The US simply does not have the authority to arbitrarily, hypocritically and unilaterlly impose its own sanctions on non-compliant nations when it serves some particular president’s political purposes.

Actually, yes, we do have that authority.

Since when is a rigorous regime of inspection and destruction of prohibited weapons, backed up by military threat and economic sanctions “doing nothing”?!!

Its “doing nothing” because it isn’t in any way going to be effective. Against a country with eladership that cared about those things, it mgiht be useful. Saddam does not.

[Mandelstam]

I’m sorry DrLizardo, but my vote of ignorance stands.