Iraq, again

@Yanny:

Except the ceasefire didn’t require Sadam not to kill people with his WMD but to turn them over to a U.N. comission to be destroyed. He failed to do this, and (and as in addition to) expelled the weapons inspecters in 1998.

Sadam has violated two provisions of the ceasefire, effectively rendering it void.

According to one of the former Inspectors (I forget his name, he wrote a book about his time in Iraq), 98% of Saddam’s weapon capability was destroyed. All of his creation ability that they knew about (And Saddam declared for the most part by the way) they destroyed. Saddam let them into most SCUD missle silos, which they destroyed.

So, that means that today, Saddam has (assuming none of it has expired or been destroyed), 2% of his original weapons capability, zero (except what he has been able to put together since 1998) creation capability, and a handful of 1970s era scud missles.

And if you claim Saddam has 1000 “Canisters” (incredibly vague term) of Biological/Chemical weapons, let Bush prove that. I’m sure he has much better intelligence than anyone else who claims he has 1000 Canisters. Let him lay out the evidence and prove to the American people (who he serveS) and the world that Saddam has what he says he has.

But I still don’t think thats cause for war. A cause for war would be proof that Saddam is involved in plots to kill Americans. I still have not seen a single shred of proof that he is doing this.

“But we should go into Iraq to bring Humanitarian aid to the people”. There are a HELL of a lot of worse off places to be than Iraq. And most of them would not require a 250,000 man war. As I’ve stated, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea are all more oppressive than Saddam Hussein. Any country in East Africa (Ex, Sudan, Ethipia, Somolia), needs Humanitarian assistance more than Iraq. The countries of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Pakistan all support terrorism.

Iraq? Iraq has violated UN resolutions, big deal. Israel has violated plenty of them. The US has violated it’s share. Hell, lets attack China if we’re going after Resolution-killers.

Is it Scott Ritter you’re referring to Yanny? Anyways, Ritter only knew what he (and the other inspectors) destroyed. He has no idea whatsoever that Saddam was even showing him the full extent of what he had stored away, nor does he know what Saddam has accomplished in the last 10 yrs.

Really, it doesn’t even matter. A “cause for war” (as you like to call it) is any violation of the UN resolution that was imposed upon Saddam. You’re missing the point here Yanny, it is not up to us to prove that he has these weapons. This is not an easter egg hunt where we’re supposed to play hide-n-seek with this fool. We simply need to prove that he has violated the terms of the agreement set forth, and I’m fairly confident that Bush will present a strong case for this after the inspectors make their report (January 23?). We knew that Saddam had “x” amount of chemical/biological weapons (that were undestroyed) when the inspectors left Iraq. Now, we need to know where those weapons are; yet so-far Saddam will not tell us where these weapons are.

Realistically, it is not feasible to think that the inspectors are actually going to uncover some “profound” discovery while they’re on their little vacation over there. Do you really think Saddam was stupid enough to leave his stuff in the same places we checked in before we left in the 90’s (with the addition of his palaces.) Of course not. In fact, it’s more practical that he has either:
A.) Moved the weapons to a country such as Syria.
B.) Given control of the weapons to his military, which (so-far) has not been under the dissection of the inspectors.

Here’s a story (I’m not even sure if it’s true, but it’s interesting to hypothethize–read the last question when the interviewer asks where the weapons are): http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=247

it would not be unjust for us to invade Iraq right now. even if our inspectors can’t find the chemical/nuclear weapons that they are hiding, we could still go to war for all the times that they have broken the UN resolution since desert storm.

Let me explain to you how the American justice system works. Accuser makes an accusation. Defender pleads Guilty, Not Guilty, or No Contest. If Not Guilty is plead, it is up to the Prosecutor to provide evidence of the crimes accused.

Bush has made an accusation, it is up to him to provide evidence backing it up. Iraq is innocent until proven guilty. There has yet to be proof of guilt presented to the American people. There is no Clear and Present Danger.

And I do not mean on the Weapons of Mass destruction issue. The only reasons for going on a legitimate war are 1) Clear and Present Danger, 2) Extreme (meaning Mass Genocide going on at this moment, ala Kosovo) Humanitarian problems and 3) Defending allies. Anything else is an imperialistic, offensive war, akin to Hitler.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that this situation falls under the jurisdiction of the American justice system. Different rules apply.

Bush has made an accusation, it is up to him to provide evidence backing it up.

Not according to the resolution.

There is no Clear and Present Danger.

Did the Taliban represent a clear and present danger to the US? No, but they were still supporting terrorists, and therefore we had to destroy them.

B) They will be if the inspectors stay around a bit longer. Right now they are just going to old sites and sites on the Iraqi declaration. There was plenty on the Iraqi declaration, Saddam was trying to save face by calling them “Dual Use facilities”.

So, how long are you suggesting we give to these guys before you admit they are not capable of destroying everything?

Yanny, Sadam has broken 2 articles of the ceasefire, rendering it void.

@DarthMaximus:

I think “the 1000 canisters” that DS refered to are the quantities of anthrax, small pox, mustard gas, VX, and serin gas that Saddam has at his disposal.

DS said that the Inspectors knew of the existance of 1000 canisters when they were forced to leave. If they also knew what was in them….
why did they not destroy them? If the canisters where hidden from the Inspectors, how could they know that they exist and what’s in them?

@StrongBad1988:

saddam tries to kill american pilots just about every day that are flying in Iraqi no-fly zones.

Yup. The Iraq defends itself against US and UK pilots who violate the Iraqs borders.
There is nothing that puts the no-fly zones on any legal ground: they actually are a continual breaking of international law by the side of the US and UK.

@Deviant:Scripter:

… Anyways, Ritter only knew what he (and the other inspectors) destroyed. He has no idea whatsoever that Saddam was even showing him the full extent of what he had stored away, nor does he know what Saddam has accomplished in the last 10 yrs.

We can be so glad that you on the other hand know what SH was working on the last 10 years, and what he has hidden for later use……

Really, it doesn’t even matter. A “cause for war” (as you like to call it) is any violation of the UN resolution that was imposed upon Saddam. You’re missing the point here Yanny, it is not up to us to prove that he has these weapons. This is not an easter egg hunt where we’re supposed to play hide-n-seek with this fool. We simply need to prove that he has violated the terms of the agreement set forth, and I’m fairly confident that Bush will present a strong case for this after the inspectors make their report (January 23?). We knew that Saddam had “x” amount of chemical/biological weapons (that were undestroyed) when the inspectors left Iraq. Now, we need to know where those weapons are; yet so-far Saddam will not tell us where these weapons are.

Again, you only say we “knew” of these weapons, and i say, we didn’t.
As well, you have never read resolution 1441, haven’t you?
There is space for interpretation, true, but for me it takes much more effort to read “Iraw has to deliver the proof” in there than “Iraq disarms, and is not allowed to lie”…… which is a difference.
The Iraqis have said they have no weapons, that they have fulfilled these parts of 1441 and 687. Now you can believe them or not… i suppose you don’t believe them (for less strange reasons than those that make you beleive your president has “proof” saying differently). Then, again, it is your turn to show he has lied.

Realistically, it is not feasible to think that the inspectors are actually going to uncover some “profound” discovery while they’re on their little vacation over there. Do you really think Saddam was stupid enough to leave his stuff in the same places we checked in before we left in the 90’s (with the addition of his palaces.) Of course not. …

small vacation…. sigh
if you don’t take the work of the UN seriously, why do you then insist on the Iraq to do it? More importantly: Why do you use the UN as an excuse for going to war?
Of course, if he had something left, he would have hidden it away. The inspectors are aware of that…
SIGH

@yourbuttocks:

Falk, how is being locked up and interogated not being treated like prisoners of war?

And do you have proof they have been tourtered?

For the second:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture/tortureworldwide_2.pdf
page 22+

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3570712.html

http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR511862002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\USA

http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/amr/usa!Open

I hope all teh links work, otherwise just google ‘torture USA’.

FOr the first: They are not POW because your government says so (that thing that also says SH has WMD)…… and if you believe the other, then why not believe the one?
And they are not treated like POWs. Or did the germans in WWII treat their captives from teh eastern front like POWs???

@F_alk:

@StrongBad1988:

saddam tries to kill american pilots just about every day that are flying in Iraqi no-fly zones.

Yup. The Iraq defends itself against US and UK pilots who violate the Iraqs borders.
There is nothing that puts the no-fly zones on any legal ground: they actually are a continual breaking of international law by the side of the US and UK.

Geez, is this guy from Germany or what? :roll:

We can be so glad that you on the other hand know what SH was working on the last 10 years, and what he has hidden for later use……

No, but I’m sure that our intelligence agencies know more than this guy claims to.

Again, you only say we “knew” of these weapons, and i say, we didn’t.
As well, you have never read resolution 1441, haven’t you?
There is space for interpretation, true, but for me it takes much more effort to read “Iraw has to deliver the proof” in there than “Iraq disarms, and is not allowed to lie”…… which is a difference.
The Iraqis have said they have no weapons, that they have fulfilled these parts of 1441 and 687. Now you can believe them or not… i suppose you don’t believe them (for less strange reasons than those that make you beleive your president has “proof” saying differently). Then, again, it is your turn to show he has lied.

Actually, I have read the resolution. Word for word.

Saddam is lying by ommission.

but for me it takes much more effort to read “Iraw has to deliver the proof” in there than “Iraq disarms, and is not allowed to lie”…… which is a difference.

The Iraqis have said they have no weapons, that they have fulfilled these parts of 1441 and 687.

Okay, so where’s Saddam’s proof…?

small vacation…. sigh
if you don’t take the work of the UN seriously, why do you then insist on the Iraq to do it? More importantly: Why do you use the UN as an excuse for going to war?
Of course, if he had something left, he would have hidden it away. The inspectors are aware of that…
SIGH

First of all, I was being sarcastic about the small vacation. :lol:
Secondly, no I do not believe the inspectors can do what they need to do with only 75 people. It’s simply a waste of time.

@Deviant:Scripter:

Geez, is this guy from Germany or what? :roll:

Yup… i am part of a “problem” :)

@Deviant:Scripter:

No, but I’m sure that our intelligence agencies know more than this guy claims to.

Well, then it’s word against word. Unless one of them shows proof for his claims, i stand with the “innocent until proven guilty”…

Saddam is lying by ommission.

Which he says he is not, word against word…… see above.

The Iraqis have said they have no weapons, that they have fulfilled these parts of 1441 and 687.

Okay, so where’s Saddam’s proof…?

Where in 1441 or 687 is denoted that SH has to proof his disarmament?
It is said he must disarm, and the UN will control that.
Now, he was disarmed after Kuwait, says he has nothing left/new. Now the UN has to proof that he has not built new weapons or hidden some.

I think it’s really interesting that you (a) believe your secret services, (b) do not believe Saddam Hussein and © ignore worldwide judicial standards for (d) reasons that sound very unconvincing if you take © into account.

Yup… i am part of a “problem”

Which would be? :wink:

@Deviant:Scripter:

Saddam is lying by ommission.

I do not know your judicial system well enough but….
(1) i know that in germany at least the accused is allowed to lie as much as he wants and as blatant as he wants.
(2) Ommission is not considered lying. It may not be very smart if you want people to trust you, but it is not lying. Is someone who is accused and does not answer at all (which he has the right to) lying all the time?

weird me being on the same page with BOTH Falk and Yanny.
Interesting how the US gives a new chapter in the history of “might making right”. I doubt that any country (maybe aside from Canada) could fly aircraft over the US and expect that there would be no attempts made to take it down. How dare Iraq make any attempts at any form of sovereignty! 10 years ago, they demonstrated they didn’t deserve it. Mind you, so did Germany, so there should be little problems for hostile nations to fly over German soil, no?
The same hypocracy applies to the US judicial system. If any US citizens were treated anywhere in the world, they would cry foul over their prosecuting country’s attempts to not follow “superior” American judicial values. Meanwhile America readily stomps out it’s own “values” as one would a $100 bill on fire when dealing with uncharged criminals.
As for the cannisters - i agree. What happened? Some inspectors “found” them, and they vanished? How do we know they are even there in the first place?
And how naive do Americans have to be to believe the CIA? I don’t even believe our own CSIS most of the time, nevermind an organization that lies as often as it tells the truth in order to obscure itself.

I think it’s really interesting that you (a) believe your secret services, (b) do not believe Saddam Hussein and © ignore worldwide judicial standards for (d) reasons that sound very unconvincing if you take © into account.

I think it’s really interesting that
(a) you can criticize our secret services, yet you’re from which country…?
(b) you would take the word of a genocidal war criminal over the best democracy in the world.
© you seek to apply judicial standards to a man we haven’t even caught yet.

All right. I give up. :P
This argument is just going around in circles. I’ll be back to argue it once Bush says we’re going to war and shows us the evidence, until then, there’s not much more to say.

@Deviant:Scripter:

I think it’s really interesting that you (a) believe your secret services, (b) do not believe Saddam Hussein and © ignore worldwide judicial standards for (d) reasons that sound very unconvincing if you take © into account.

I think it’s really interesting that
(a) you can criticize our secret services, yet you’re from which country…?
(b) you would take the word of a genocidal war criminal over the best democracy in the world.
© you seek to apply judicial standards to a man we haven’t even caught yet.

All right. I give up. :P
This argument is just going around in circles. I’ll be back to argue it once Bush says we’re going to war and shows us the evidence, until then, there’s not much more to say.

a) it’s no mystery that the CIA lies, covers-up, and acts in ways that are morally suspect. Even stupid Americans must have noticed that by now.
b) the “best democracy”? According to who? What percent voted for Bush? Where invading a country is at stake, even the “best democracy” (guffaw) must do SOMETHING to prove its case rather than spew rhetoric (that’s all they’ve done so far. I’m amazed that this is the best they’ve come up with. Hitler did no less.)
c) i think “worldwide judicial standards” refers to proof of guilt (true, this does not apply to France and other 2-bit banana republics).