Iraq compliance
Posted: February 28, 2003, 4:47 pm
Acies wrote:Disarm
Hmmm I guess force works, Look whos disarming now.
Page 1 of 1
Re: Iraq compliance
Posted: February 28, 2003, 4:48 pm
Posted: February 28, 2003, 4:50 pm
They have destroyed chemical weapons lately as well, and took the Inspectors out to a site where they claim they destroyed weapoms back in.. hum.. '95 I think it was. The Inspectors took lots of samples of the earth and the metals they unearthed to verify their story. Tests not done yet.
Of course, just as Iraq started doing this Bush started the "War with Iraq will leade to wave of peace in Middle East" BS. Guess he decided his old BS wasn't good enough anymore.
Of course, just as Iraq started doing this Bush started the "War with Iraq will leade to wave of peace in Middle East" BS. Guess he decided his old BS wasn't good enough anymore.
Posted: February 28, 2003, 5:09 pm
Hrmm, I haven't heard that they have destroyed any chemical munitions at all.
They are trying to convince the inspectors they have none by giing samples from a destruction site, as they kept no records of the destruction. That's just a little hard to swallow.
1. You destroyed chemical and biological weapons without any tracking at all?
2. You did this in 1995 and are just now willing to admit it?
Have to see wherer this leads. If the threat of millitary force finally brings Saddam and Iraq into compliance, great. This smells like another stall tactic, however.
They are trying to convince the inspectors they have none by giing samples from a destruction site, as they kept no records of the destruction. That's just a little hard to swallow.
1. You destroyed chemical and biological weapons without any tracking at all?
2. You did this in 1995 and are just now willing to admit it?
Have to see wherer this leads. If the threat of millitary force finally brings Saddam and Iraq into compliance, great. This smells like another stall tactic, however.
Posted: February 28, 2003, 5:29 pm
http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=27560
Once again in Norwegian.. haven't had time to look for an English version yet.
Weapon Inspectors destroyed 10 grenades filled with mustard gas. The grenades were in Iraq's most important factory for chemical weapons in the 1980s, al-Muthanna, 70 kilometers south of Bagdad. The Inspectors destroyed the grenades along with Iraqi military personel, and Iraq reported the grenades to UN themself.
Also rechecked the year that they claimed they destroyed their arsenal, it was in 1991 not 1995 as I said. They unearthed it, and the Inspectors took several samples and collected metals for testing.
Once again in Norwegian.. haven't had time to look for an English version yet.
Weapon Inspectors destroyed 10 grenades filled with mustard gas. The grenades were in Iraq's most important factory for chemical weapons in the 1980s, al-Muthanna, 70 kilometers south of Bagdad. The Inspectors destroyed the grenades along with Iraqi military personel, and Iraq reported the grenades to UN themself.
Also rechecked the year that they claimed they destroyed their arsenal, it was in 1991 not 1995 as I said. They unearthed it, and the Inspectors took several samples and collected metals for testing.
Posted: February 28, 2003, 5:36 pm
Weapon Inspectors destroyed 10 grenades filled with mustard gas. The grenades were in Iraq's most important factory for chemical weapons in the 1980s, al-Muthanna, 70 kilometers south of Bagdad. The Inspectors destroyed the grenades along with Iraqi military personel, and Iraq reported the grenades to UN themself.
Good to hear.
Let's see what they come up with on the more serious weapons now. I very much want to know where all that VX and the precursor chemicals disappeared to.
Posted: February 28, 2003, 5:41 pm
They are destroying Iraqi military personnel already? Damn. I must have missed something.Kelshara wrote: The Inspectors destroyed the grenades along with Iraqi military personel, and Iraq reported the grenades to UN themself.
Posted: February 28, 2003, 5:42 pm
Wow i didn't realize the inspectors were authorized to destroy personelKelshara wrote:The Inspectors destroyed the grenades along with Iraqi military personel, and Iraq reported the grenades to UN themself.
*edit* DOH! beaten
Posted: February 28, 2003, 5:43 pm
Hahah I win. I quoted and made the same comment but before you.
Posted: February 28, 2003, 5:44 pm
Gah it's not easy to translate a text on the fly like that 
Didn't proof read it, my mistake.. sorry.
Didn't proof read it, my mistake.. sorry.
Posted: February 28, 2003, 6:01 pm
The Bush Administration will have another reason/excuse for war in time for the 6 o'clock news.
Posted: February 28, 2003, 6:05 pm
They already have one: War on Iraq will lead to a wave of peace and understanding throughout the Middle East!
I about fell off my chair when I heard that one..
I about fell off my chair when I heard that one..
Posted: February 28, 2003, 6:11 pm
they have actually felt this way for some time.Kelshara wrote:They already have one: War on Iraq will lead to a wave of peace and understanding throughout the Middle East!
I about fell off my chair when I heard that one..
I believe in the November New Yorker a consultant affiliated with the administration was interviewed making this claim. I am certain it was in the article, the uncertainty i have is about the issue. it was a very interesting read.
it has only been recently that the White House has put it into their PR package though for the masses. I suspect because their other arguments simply aren't having the impact.
right or wrong in its intentions in Iraq, this administration has been outmaneuvered in diplomatic spheres by quite a few people, not the least of which is Saddam Hussein
Posted: February 28, 2003, 7:07 pm
Yeah, removing one regime form an area that has been in constant conflict for two millenia is going to bring peace.
right.
I agree someone has to start from somewhere to unravel this ball of yarn, but that is a pathetic statement.
right.
I agree someone has to start from somewhere to unravel this ball of yarn, but that is a pathetic statement.
Posted: February 28, 2003, 7:11 pm
i'm not sure it is in our best interest to be unravelling this ball of yarn either. our economy is not exactly humming smoothly along, and OPECs announcements today arent going to help the markets on monday.
Re: Iraq compliance
Posted: February 28, 2003, 7:20 pm
Before you loony liberals cream yourselves over this, please revisit this subject in a month's time. I'm sure it will prove to be yet another game of cat and mouse for Saddam.Acies wrote:Disarm
Whoooops, sorry... forgot that liberals have no ability to use history as a means of modifying their points of view. Objective facts are merely an obstacle to the path of true enlightenment. Sorry.
Move along please.
Re: Iraq compliance
Posted: February 28, 2003, 7:47 pm
WTF crack are you smokingMetanis wrote:Before you loony liberals cream yourselves over this, please revisit this subject in a month's time. I'm sure it will prove to be yet another game of cat and mouse for Saddam.Acies wrote:Disarm
Whoooops, sorry... forgot that liberals have no ability to use history as a means of modifying their points of view. Objective facts are merely an obstacle to the path of true enlightenment. Sorry.
Move along please.
Posted: February 28, 2003, 8:37 pm
Acies, I think he is referring to the fact that historically, the only time Saddam has complied is at gunpoint.
It's a valid argument.
It's a valid argument.
Posted: February 28, 2003, 9:09 pm
yes rulers of sovereign countries generally don't do everything other countries demand them to do unless you force them.Fallanthas wrote:Acies, I think he is referring to the fact that historically, the only time Saddam has complied is at gunpoint.
Posted: February 28, 2003, 9:21 pm
I can agree with that point Falla. I won't agree with the point stating us "liberals" cannot seem to learn from history.
In fact, to Metanis: If that is the case why can't you "Conservatives" learn the simplest of history, that being: WAR = BAD
In fact, to Metanis: If that is the case why can't you "Conservatives" learn the simplest of history, that being: WAR = BAD
Posted: February 28, 2003, 9:25 pm
War = bad, eh?
You do realize that without war the United States would not exist?
**whoosh**
That was the sound of a clue whistling by your empty little head, Kooky. Noone said anything about doing "everything". Hussien has not agreed to ANY UN resolution without having a gun rammed against his temple.
You do realize that without war the United States would not exist?
**whoosh**
That was the sound of a clue whistling by your empty little head, Kooky. Noone said anything about doing "everything". Hussien has not agreed to ANY UN resolution without having a gun rammed against his temple.
Posted: February 28, 2003, 9:32 pm
Dude, you DO realize that without war the United States would not have needed to be formed in the first place?Fallanthas wrote:War = bad, eh?
You do realize that without war the United States would not exist?
**whoosh**
That was the sound of a clue whistling by your empty little head, Kooky. Noone said anything about doing "everything". Hussien has not agreed to ANY UN resolution without having a gun rammed against his temple.
It is called hope for a better world, one to which Bush is not contributing.
Posted: February 28, 2003, 9:37 pm
I am really starting to worry about the state of our educational system. Well, I have been worried about it for a long time, but this thread is really accentuating that there is a problem.
The United States was not formed because of war. The United states was formed because of religious and class persecution in England. There was no war that led to the formation of the United States. There was war afterwards when England decided she didn't like the colonies becoming independant.
The United States was not formed because of war. The United states was formed because of religious and class persecution in England. There was no war that led to the formation of the United States. There was war afterwards when England decided she didn't like the colonies becoming independant.
Posted: February 28, 2003, 11:11 pm
The latest spin from the Bush administration makes me ill. Lets invade countries and force our government on them! Bush's comments lately lend a great deal to Sadam's colonist arguments. Are we going to make them convert to christianity at gunpoint next?
I'll give Bush credit for dealing with the deficit. Projected 400bn, including the war costs, shattering the previous record. If you are going to go broke you might as well go out in grand style
. Maybe he should cut some more taxes while at it. I'm betting he will break 7 trillion on the national debt this year.
I'll give Bush credit for dealing with the deficit. Projected 400bn, including the war costs, shattering the previous record. If you are going to go broke you might as well go out in grand style
. Maybe he should cut some more taxes while at it. I'm betting he will break 7 trillion on the national debt this year.Posted: March 1, 2003, 1:18 am
Huh???The United States was not formed because of war. The United states was formed because of religious and class persecution in England. There was no war that led to the formation of the United States.
Where in the hell did you learn that bullshit?
Posted: March 1, 2003, 1:27 am
Why did the colonists come here, Wulf? What war sent them this way?
What war caused the Declaration of Independence to be drafted?
War was a consequence of forming the country, not the cause of it.
What war caused the Declaration of Independence to be drafted?
War was a consequence of forming the country, not the cause of it.
Posted: March 1, 2003, 2:15 am
Us "conservatives" know without a doubt that WAR = BAD. We also know there are things worse than war. Tyranny. Slavery. Genocide. Mass Murder. Famine. Pestilence.Acies wrote:I can agree with that point Falla. I won't agree with the point stating us "liberals" cannot seem to learn from history.
In fact, to Metanis: If that is the case why can't you "Conservatives" learn the simplest of history, that being: WAR = BAD
We also recognize that we have both a right and an obligation to do something about those issues. The balance scales tip overwhelmingly in favor of war against Saddam... that is the correct solution to his actions and to his potential for even more terrible acts.
Of course the most preferable option would still remain that Saddam merely abides by the existing UN resolutions. I remain awestruck that none of you liberals can bring yourself to chastize the man responsible... SoDamn Insane himself.
WAR=BAD but LIBERALS=CLUELESS
Posted: March 1, 2003, 4:04 am
Huh?We also recognize that we have both a right and an obligation to do something about those issues. The balance scales tip overwhelmingly in favor of war against Saddam...
We have an obligation to go to war with Saddam? Then we also have an obligation to do something about these instances wherever they should occur. The reason your scale is so fucked up is because of all the oil and propaganda that Dubya has put on the scale. In fact, the scale is fucking broke, but I'm sure it looks pretty to you.
Posted: March 1, 2003, 4:22 am
None of you fucks has any idea what saddam does or doesn't have, or what our intelligence knows or doesn't know. Keep talking about oil while your liberal bitch pumps you in the ass you.
Posted: March 1, 2003, 4:47 am
I know my liberal bitch pumps me in the ass me all the time.Fash wrote:None of you fucks has any idea what saddam does or doesn't have, or what our intelligence knows or doesn't know. Keep talking about oil while your liberal bitch pumps you in the ass you.
Posted: March 1, 2003, 5:06 am
OIL: The Other Iraq War
The president, vice president and national security adviser all claim a stunning pedigree. Bush is a former director of Harken Energy Corp.; Cheney served as chief executive officer of Halliburton Energy Services Corp.; and National Security Council Director Condoleezza Rice served on the board of directors of Chevron, which later named a super-tanker after her.
Financial disclosure forms reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity, a non-partisan watchdog group, report that the top 100 officials in the Bush administration have the majority of their personal investments, almost $150 million, in the traditional energy and natural resource sectors. For instance, Rice holds $225,000 worth of Chevron stock in a blind trust.
Cheney’s commission on energy policy, which submitted a report last year recommending that the United States “conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq” that includes “military ... assessments.”
Posted: March 1, 2003, 12:58 pm
Ah but the thing is, if the intelligence services have such detailed info, why haven't they helped the Weapons Inspectors find the weapons? 
Posted: March 1, 2003, 1:13 pm
What Would Jesus Do?
Posted: March 1, 2003, 1:22 pm
remember the sodom and gomor-alamo