Got WMD?

[Natoma]

Ok, first off you quoted yourself and attributed it to me. Then you quoted me and attributed to yourself. And you actually built arguments around those comments!



Sheesh joe, fix your quoting and your comments. Then I'll respond.

I did not write this: "Um, inspectors did not work this time. They were allowed in, but still were not being cooperated with. Where have you been?"

And you did not write this: "One can threaten use of force if compliance does not occur and mean it."

Lord knows what else you misquoted. No wonder you're always getting what I write mixed up. You can't even quote correctly

[EDIT]I won't even attempt to respond to your uber butchered post until you fix it. I don't even know what you wrote and what I wrote anymore in that monstrosity you created. [/EDIT]

 

[Vince]

There's more to it than that. WMD is the only pretense under which this invasion can be considered legal, (and even this is pretty shaky ground).

Whats your motivation for posting this? It's utterly wrong and it must be reflective of some inner desire or problem: Do you knowingly post this false stuff or are you just unaware?

The "pretense" is very clear, very legally binding and totally irreputable by anyone who claims the UN has legitamicy as a legal, global body.

In April of 1991, the Iraqi's agreed to UNSCR 687 that legally declared an end to open hostility between the UN and the Iraqi regime based on certain tenets, one of these being that said regime would destroy it's known stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, document and declare these actions and guide the UN based inspectors threw this process, thus verifying that they're disaremed by proving it to the Inspectors (as seen in South Africa, circa 1993).

-Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
-Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
-Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
-Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
-Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
-Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
-Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
-Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
-Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

This was clearly not upheld from the former Iraqi regimes position. This can easily be seen by the UN's following actions, namely:

- "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
- "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
- Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
- Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
- Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
- Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
- Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
- ...

Care to tell me how much time passed before the Iraqi regime violated the cease-fire as per UNSCR 687 ? 5 Months!!!

Other relevent Iraqi events that broke the UNSCR 687 based cease-fire:

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002

And the following statements from the President of the USNC regarding Iraq's continued violation of the UNSCR's listed above - all which are breaking UNSCR 687 by way of it's terms.

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998

Thus, as stated by Oxford University's Adam Roberts:

The ceasefire is clearly conditional on Iraq doing certain things. If Iraq is in violation of those terms then the ceasefire is called into question," said

So, how is there not a clear legal pretense for open hostility? If a part breaks a cease-fire - you are in a de facto state of war.

What you're stating is negating the authority and role of the UNSC by basically stating that breaking UNSCResolutions as powerful as a ceasefire are meaningless.

Whats to stop the North Koreans from crossing the DMZ en masse and breaking that cease-fire? Would you support those actions as you obviously are Saddam's by logical extention to your argument? Would you argue and deride the United States for becomming militarily involved on the peninsula?

What are you thinking? Seriously, go hit the bong with Howard Dean and talk about the world.. because to anyone else you just sound dumb.

 

[Natoma]

Just making sure the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Powell quotes don't get buried in all this. Because remember, this war was always about removing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Or should we call them Weapons of Mass Disappearance now.

[EDIT]Only putting in the quotes now. We've already debated the other stuff I wrote[/EDIT]

------------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/index.html

Also, here are some quotes from a TIME magazine article I'm reading now with regard to the WMDs (weapons of mass disappearance)

There's no doubt in my mind but that they current have chemical and biological weapons.

We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

Here are some quotes from the TIME Magazine article:

The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly 5 times the size of Manhattan.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Sheesh joe, fix your quoting and your comments. Then I'll respond.

Fixed.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Natoma,

I don't understand the point of those quotes. They are relaying intellignece based information. And without even seeing the context of all the quotes, in the majority of them are statements like "we believe", "in my mind", etc.

No one is denying the case they made for WMD, so what's your point?

 

[Natoma]

Read the CNN article that I linked to in my prior post. And if you get a chance, pickup last week's TIME magazine. I quoted them directly as they are quoted on CNN and TIME.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Read the CNN article that I linked to in my prior post.

I did. An interesting topic: "Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?".

But I don't see a lot of context around the quotes given. (Supposedly, because they are lies?)

And in many cases, I DO see statments that are opinion and can't be proven as a lie or not, such as the majority of the ones you quoted.

Here's another: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

So, as long as the "sources" did say that, what is actually a lie?

Certainly, the President is in trouble if he was lying.

But relaying to the American public what he's been told by intelligence, which appears to be the case in the majority if not all the quotes, is not lying.

 

[antlers]

So, as long as the "sources" did say that, what is actually a lie?

Certainly, the President is in trouble if he was lying.

But relaying to the American public what he's been told by intelligence, which appears to be the case in the majority if not all the quotes, is not lying.

So it's wrong to lie, but it's OK to make very clear to your intelligence analysts what they have to say in order to keep their careers, and then quote that?

 

[Vince]

So it's wrong to lie, but it's OK to make very clear to your intelligence analysts what they have to say in order to keep their careers, and then quote that?

Bullshit. Where do you get this stuff? You people consistently amaze me with your totally unfounded and utterly ridiculous comment.

Do you want to enter a comment against the Administration? Please, do it - more power to ya. But do it like Natoma and quote a source, preferably one which isn't as deeply biased and illogical as yourself.

If we've seen anything over the past year, is that whistleblowers exist in mass. Hell, the "whistleblowers" where Time's People of last year! Yet, I don't see them emerging from ANY of the domestic or international agencies that all agreed on Iraq's programs and stating what you propose. So, please... STFU.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So it's wrong to lie,

Correct.

but it's OK to make very clear to your intelligence analysts what they have to say in order to keep their careers, and then quote that?

1) Who said that was OK
2) Where is the evidence this occurred, or even implied to have occurred in the referenced article?

 

[pax]

Hmm depends what you read of course... To me the whistle blowers were the french german and russian intelligence... I did also read of a few resignations from state and cia 6 months ago or so over this but it barely got a mention in the media.

Also it took what... 40 years? Just to get one whistle blower from the entire tobacco industry over the fact they manipulated nicotine and its delivery in their products?

 

[Clashman]

Some CIA analyts said felt pressure on Iraq - report
Thu Jun 5, 2:06 AM ET


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Multiple" visits to the CIA (news - web sites) by Vice President Cheney and a top aide over the past year created an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make assessments of Iraq (news - web sites) data fit the administration's policy objectives, The Washington Post reported on Thursday.



The report cited an unnamed senior CIA official as saying that the visits by Cheney and his chief of staff to question the analysts "sent signals, intended or otherwise that a certain output was desired from here."


The disclosure comes amid growing concern that the administration exaggerated -- either deliberately or due to faulty intelligence -- the threat posed by Iraq's weapons.


The assertion by the Bush administration that Iraq possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and had a program to develop nuclear weapons was a prime justification for the war but no such weapon has been found since President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was toppled.


The Washington Post said it could not learn the exact number of visits by Cheney to the CIA but it reported that one agency official described them as "multiple."


The report cited intelligence officials as saying that visits to CIA headquarters by a vice president are unusual.


The newspaper reported that former and current intelligence officials said they felt a continual drumbeat not only from Cheney but also from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and, to a lesser extent, CIA Director George Tenet, to find information or write reports in a way that would help the administration make the case that invading Iraq was urgent.


The Post said a spokeswoman for Cheney declined to discuss the matter on Wednesday.


The newspaper quoted senior administration sources as saying that the visits allowed Cheney and his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, to have direct exchanges with analysts rather than ask questions of their daily briefers.


The paper quoted sources, which it described as sympathetic to the vice president's approach, as saying that their goal was to have a free flow of information and not to intimidate the analysts. The sources said that some analysts may well have misinterpreted questions as directives

 

[Vince]

Hmm depends what you read of course... To me the whistle blowers were the french german and russian intelligence...

The French Intelligence collaberated with the UK on several occations, confirming the Iraqi programs. For example:

France is "against publishing secret documents on Iraq's weapons programs," AFP is reporting. Tony Blair has said that, in the coming weeks, he'll release "damning information" about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction capability and development. But the French want none of it.

Apparently that intelligence that Blair speaks of is the result of shared work with French intelligence, and "is out of the question to divulge these exchanges."

I wonder. What are the French trying to hide?

AFAIK, heard this on the TV, the Intelligence agencies in France and Germany both acknowledged that Iraq was developing these weapons and the means to produce them.

I did also read of a few resignations from state and cia 6 months ago or so over this but it barely got a mention in the media.

People did many things due to their convictions against the war. I have yet to hear of one that has resigned and stated that they were manipulated as he blatently stated. And that's why I called him on it.

 

[Clashman]

Since when was there a cease-fire, Vince? You can't have a cease-fire if you don't stop bombing them.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

BTW...

We didn't have enough forces in Baghdad. Or did you not notice the fact that we couldn't protect their museums that housed artifacts from the birthplace of human civilization dating back thousands of years?

Lol...are you kidding me? As if protecting a museum is some high priority vs. risking american lives?

By the way, I guess this statement of yours means you missed the reports today that the majority of "so called missing" artifacts are not actually missing at all?

Sources, should you be in doubt:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974193,00.html

So, there's the picture: 100,000-plus priceless items looted either under the very noses of the Yanks, or by the Yanks themselves. And the only problem with it is that it's nonsense. It isn't true. It's made up. It's bollocks....Not all of it, of course. There was some looting and damage to a small number of galleries and storerooms, and that is grievous enough. But over the past six weeks it has gradually become clear that most of the objects which had been on display in the museum galleries were removed before the war. Some of the most valuable went into bank vaults, where they were discovered last week. Eight thousand more have been found in 179 boxes hidden "in a secret vault". And several of the larger and most remarked items seem to have been spirited away long before the Americans arrived in Baghdad.

George is now quoted as saying that that items lost could represent "a small percentage" of the collection and blamed shoddy reporting for the exaggeration.

Imagine that...shoddy reporting? Nah...never happens.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32129-2003Jun8.html?referrer=emailarticle

BAGHDAD, June 8 -- The world was appalled. One archaeologist described the looting of Iraq's National Museum of Antiquities as "a rape of civilization." Iraqi scholars standing in the sacked galleries of the exhibit halls in April wept on camera as they stood on shards of cuneiform tablets dating back thousands of years.

Sounds like they could be describing you, Natoma.

The article continues:

...The museum was indeed heavily looted, but its Iraqi directors confirmed today that the losses at the institute did not number 170,000 artifacts as originally reported in news accounts.

Actually, about 33 priceless vases, statues and jewels were missing

Damn the coalition forces! 33 items missing and it's all our fault!! How can we sleep at night?!

 

[Vince]

The paper quoted sources, which it described as sympathetic to the vice president's approach, as saying that their goal was to have a free flow of information and not to intimidate the analysts. The sources said that some analysts may well have misinterpreted questions as directives

Bingo. This is getting ridiculous:

The report cited an unnamed senior CIA official as saying that the visits by Cheney and his chief of staff to question the analysts "sent signals, intended or otherwise that a certain output was desired from here."

"Sent Signals"

So, let me get this strait - the defense establishment lied and put their own asses (military and the eventual job in the defense industry) on the line because of "sent signals"... excuse me while I inject the necessary .

 

[Vince]

Since when was there a cease-fire, Vince? You can't have a cease-fire if you don't stop bombing them.

Was my call of ignorance right or what?!? If you didn't know (obviously you do not), UNSCR 687 was the cease-fire agreement from 1991 that encompassed the resolutions that set-up the no-fly zones. Which Iraq routinly broke and violated by marking coalition aircraft with RADAR or engaging them with SAM and AA gun fire.

How long would the cease-fire agreement on the Korean Peninsula last if evertime an American plane came near the DMZ - the North would launch a SAM at it? Only in Iraq, Only with the UN...

 

[Clashman]

The no fly zones were not set up by UNSCR 687, they were set up outside the UN by the US, Britain, and France, and are most likely a violation of international law.

 

[pax]

Well personally I think he had some weapons and it might be some while before we find them or the remains of them. But the issue was were the intelligence reports real or fabricated even if partially for political puposes. With the example of the nuclear report being a clear fabrication theres reason for doubt about the political manipulation of intelligence.

I personally think the conflict between state\cia and white house\pentagon was probably more fierce behind the stage than the one between france and the white house.

I think the moral argument for war in Iraq was made long ago. Its clear tho that had we used that instead of the legal one it would have set precedent. Heck even a recent wolfowitz comment indicates the intelligence was bogus.

The legal argument for war may not be entirely removed by the lack of wmds but it can be called into question as part of an effort to see if the administration was being honest. I personally dont care about whether there are now or not. I do care if the administration lied in any way about it. Hell of a lot more serious than a blow job if you ask me.

I think the fake nuke documents by themselves should have led to an independant investigation of Bush and the admin by now. Is Kenneth Star still in the biz?

 

[Vince]

The no fly zones were not set up by UNSCR 687, they were set up outside the UN by the US, Britain, and France, and are most likely a violation of international law.

The US, UK & France utilized UNSCR 688 to justify setting up the No-FLy Zones. UNSCR 687 states that all subsequent and related resolutions that are broken are in violation of said "cease-fire" resolution. (I quoted this earlier if you'd like to look back)

If you haven't caught on, my point is that by breaking the subsequent resolutions (in addition to 687 itself), the Iraqi's have by extention violated the cease-fire agreement several hundred times in total. Thus placing these parties in a de facto state of aggression and giving legal agreement to said agression under the UN's own resolutions.