Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/19/08 09:01 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 9/18/08 05:04 PM, adrshepard wrote: Expelled? Ordered to leave? What difference does it make? The only thing they can do without Iraqi cooperation is sit around in their hotel rooms.

But they weren't expelled or ordered to leave, by Iraq. Their own boss pulled them out.

Dur, mebbe Iraq isn't doing the ordering...ooooohhhhh.

That would be why Blix was asking for more time for inspections.

It was totally necessary for you to copy every paragraph and link each to the main page. A one word link would have been woefully inadequate.

Blix makes no such request for more time. He refers to some nebulous "draft work programme", which the burden should be on you to describe. It sounds as if he's making guidelines for future rounds of inspections that would happen after a few punitive bombings. He's also trying to say that his organization is still relevant.

I naturally feel sadness that three and a half months of work carried out in Iraq have not brought the assurances needed about the absence of weapons of mass destruction or other proscribed items in Iraq, that no more time is available for our inspections and that armed action now seems imminent.

Obviously he's disappointed. He can't very well make judgments about what should be done about Saddam and he certainly wouldn't celebrate military action. I would be curious about when he would consider his job completed, given that he thinks his available information is inadequate, as stated earlier, and because of the continually reluctant and deceptive character of Iraqi cooperation.

At 9/19/08 08:58 AM, bcdemon wrote: But before you said that Blix said Iraq was not being truthful, Blix never said that.

If you wanted to nitpick semantics, you would be correct, he never really said that. What he DID say was that Iraq was far from forthcoming in it's declarations, they were incomplete, and that he had no reason to believe Saddam had disarmed to the extent that he had claimed (all of which I have posted thus far).

That and it would appear Iraq was being truthful about their WMD declaration.

Then why did he say that Iraq was dragging its feet on declarations when they were normally forthcoming? If there was nothing there then WHY did he want to double the size of his staff and redouble his search efforts? Why bother looking for what you proclaim to the rest of the world does not exist?

What Bush did was force a war on Iraq, by setting March 17 as the final day to disarm.

UNSCR 1441 was passed unanimously on November 8th 2002 with a clause that stated that Iraq disarm OR ELSE. What was the UN's intention with such a resolution and how were they going to enforce if they felt so strongly about Saddam's disarmament? Or was it just more paperwork and finger wagging like the other 10 resolutions demanding Saddam disarm?

And it seems that someone caught you in all your glory:

Flattery gets you no-where.

At 9/19/08 04:18 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 9/19/08 09:01 AM, bcdemon wrote: That would be why Blix was asking for more time for inspections.

It was totally necessary for you to copy every paragraph and link each to the main page. A one word link would have been woefully inadequate.

Like I told Proteas, if I am going to be accused of leaving certain parts of articles out so it conforms to my argument, then I will quote the whole fucking report/article.

Blix makes no such request for more time.

Blix said he felt sadness that no more time was available for inspections.

"I naturally feel sadness that three and a half months of work carried out in Iraq have not brought the assurances needed about the absence of weapons of mass destruction or other proscribed items in Iraq, that no more time is available for our inspections and that armed action now seems imminent."

At 9/19/08 05:56 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/19/08 08:58 AM, bcdemon wrote: That and it would appear Iraq was being truthful about their WMD declaration.

Then why did he say that Iraq was dragging its feet on declarations when they were normally forthcoming? If there was nothing there then WHY did he want to double the size of his staff and redouble his search efforts? Why bother looking for what you proclaim to the rest of the world does not exist?

He figured Iraq should have better documentation, maybe they didn't, who knows. And he wanted to increase his staff to search more places in a shorter time span.

What Bush did was force a war on Iraq, by setting March 17 as the final day to disarm.

UNSCR 1441 was passed unanimously on November 8th 2002 with a clause that stated that Iraq disarm OR ELSE. What was the UN's intention with such a resolution and how were they going to enforce if they felt so strongly about Saddam's disarmament? Or was it just more paperwork and finger wagging like the other 10 resolutions demanding Saddam disarm?

Or else? So did it mention military intervention on March 19 2003? Nope. This is why the 3 Amigos ran to the Azores to make their own war pact, because the UN wasn't going for it. There was no evidence to even remotely suggest that Saddam had WMD. Maybe if Blix had found something, anything in the way of a WMD then the UN may have gone for a war.

At 9/21/08 10:20 AM, bcdemon wrote: He figured Iraq should have better documentation, maybe they didn't, who knows.

BLIX KNEW, that's who. And for him to explicitly state that Iraq, a well run government, did not have the proper documentation of it's own weapon stockpiles ought to send a red flag up in the mind of everyone reading.

And he wanted to increase his staff to search more places in a shorter time span.

For what, pixie dust?

Or else? So did it mention military intervention on March 19 2003? Nope.

Then why include such a clause?

There was no evidence to even remotely suggest that Saddam had WMD.

Then why was 1441 the 11th UNSCR demanding Saddam disarm? What evidence were they looking at that gave them the impression he had WMD'S bc?

At 9/21/08 10:49 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/21/08 10:20 AM, bcdemon wrote: He figured Iraq should have better documentation, maybe they didn't, who knows.

BLIX KNEW, that's who. And for him to explicitly state that Iraq, a well run government, did not have the proper documentation of it's own weapon stockpiles ought to send a red flag up in the mind of everyone reading.

It did send red flags, that's why inspections were so important. But just because Iraqs paperwork wasn't up to par doesn't mean military intervention is required.

Or else? So did it mention military intervention on March 19 2003? Nope.

Then why include such a clause?

The clause was, if Iraq was found to be in breach, then it would return to the security council for further consideration. Again, that is why Bush, Blair and Azner met in the Azores with their own resolution, the UN SC wasn't agreed on military intervention at that point.

There was no evidence to even remotely suggest that Saddam had WMD.

Then why was 1441 the 11th UNSCR demanding Saddam disarm? What evidence were they looking at that gave them the impression he had WMD'S bc?

Couldn't tell ya. Bush was the one who came out and said Saddam had this, that and the next thing.

At 9/22/08 09:46 AM, bcdemon wrote: The clause was, if Iraq was found to be in breach, then it would return to the security council for further consideration.

"Further consideration?" That's what "or else" means to you? That's what the penalty would be for violating 11 council resolutions DEMANDING that you come clean with the council and disarm?

You'd fit right in at the UN.

Couldn't tell ya. Bush was the one who came out and said Saddam had this, that and the next thing.

Actually, it was UNMOVIC that came out stated that their inspections confirmed Saddam had massive stockpiles of Serin, VX, and Anthrax that was not accounted for and could not be shown to have been destroyed. Blix stating that Saddam had failed to do his part and properly document his own stockpiles and show evidence of WHAT he had done with them kind of put the last nail in his own coffin.

At 9/22/08 11:48 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/22/08 09:46 AM, bcdemon wrote: The clause was, if Iraq was found to be in breach, then it would return to the security council for further consideration.

"Further consideration?" That's what "or else" means to you? That's what the penalty would be for violating 11 council resolutions DEMANDING that you come clean with the council and disarm?

You do realize that resolution 1441 doesn't exactly say "or else", don't you? As I already stated, but am willing to regurgitate for you (repetition is how we learn), Resolution 1441 paragraph 4,11 and 12 state that if Saddam is found to be in breach, then it goes back to the SC for further consideration. Although paragraph 12 does state "serious consequences", it doesn't mention to what severity the consequences will be. I imagine that would be something they discussed.

Couldn't tell ya. Bush was the one who came out and said Saddam had this, that and the next thing.

Actually, it was UNMOVIC that came out stated that their inspections confirmed Saddam had massive stockpiles of Serin, VX, and Anthrax that was not accounted for and could not be shown to have been destroyed. Blix stating that Saddam had failed to do his part and properly document his own stockpiles and show evidence of WHAT he had done with them kind of put the last nail in his own coffin.

Huh? You were asking me what evidence they were looking at when they drafted resolution 1441. Now you jump forward to a time after Resolution 1441 was written and inspections had resumed.
What gives?

At 9/19/08 03:19 AM, homor wrote:

At 9/18/08 07:12 PM, WARTORIOUS wrote: moronic conspiracy bullshit.

shoo shoo little one, the big kids are talking.

Bahahaha! I love it - a 14 year old trying to condescend a (hopefully dyslexic) 20 year old.

At 9/23/08 08:13 AM, bcdemon wrote: What gives?

The UNMOVIC inspections I'm speaking of took place before 1441, right around 1998 actually before Desert Fox. You were the one universally proclaiming that Saddam did not have Weapons of Mass destruction, ever, period, finito.

So, we have...
- UNSC under Richard Butler stating that Saddam had WMD's and no proof as to their fate.
- UNMOVIC under Hans Blix stating that he had no reason to believe that Saddam had disarmed as per the resolutions passed against him, and that his declarations were far from complete.
- Blix also stating that he wanted to double the size of his inspection team and be allowed to search sites that had previously been off limits.

Are you startng to see why I side with the conservatives on this issue, and not oil conspiracy theory libs like yourself?

The war was not justified. We killed tons of innocents, wasted loads of money and barely found what we were looking for. I've read that we have accomplished 2 out of 30 of the ambitious goals we set (including executing Saddam) and thus, we have failed miserably for all the time, lives, and money we wasted doing nothing important and killing a faceless enemy that's almost unlimited...

At 9/23/08 10:07 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/23/08 08:13 AM, bcdemon wrote: What gives?

The UNMOVIC inspections I'm speaking of took place before 1441, right around 1998 actually before Desert Fox. You were the one universally proclaiming that Saddam did not have Weapons of Mass destruction, ever, period, finito.

Whoa there, hold on. I never once stated that Saddam never possessed WMD. If you're going to make wild accusations like that you better have a link to some text...

So, we have...
- UNSC under Richard Butler stating that Saddam had WMD's and no proof as to their fate.
- UNMOVIC under Hans Blix stating that he had no reason to believe that Saddam had disarmed as per the resolutions passed against him, and that his declarations were far from complete.
- Blix also stating that he wanted to double the size of his inspection team and be allowed to search sites that had previously been off limits.

This is why inspections should have continued, to answer these questions. This is why Blix wanted inspections to continue.