• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proof that Iraq is in "material breach" of UNSC resolution 687 since inception.

OK, fine with me!

I asked four times to see this evidence which showed that International Sanctions against Iraq were not working because Iraq was able to get materials abroad in order to support its WMD program.

I asked four times, and each time a negative response.

So, in your own way you have answered my question. That is the type of answer I typically get from those who are aching to start shooting in Iraq.

They know what the the problem is,
however they cannot provide any evidence to validate the said problem,
and the do not understand why anyone should even care about this evidence,
because they know what the problem is.

Behold the joy of circular logic!

Thank you so very much, you have been most helpful.
 
Crossbow said:
OK, fine with me!

I asked four times to see this evidence which showed that International Sanctions against Iraq were not working because Iraq was able to get materials abroad in order to support its WMD program.

What has this question got to do with the topic of this thread?? Nothing right??? Therefore your attempt to hijack this thread is noted.



I asked four times, and each time a negative response.

You asked 3 times and I gave you an honest "I don't know", why don't you enlighten me? The fourth time you asked it became apparent that you are not interested in the truth, or the actual subject of the thread.

So, in your own way you have answered my question.

Oh??


That is the type of answer I typically get from those who are aching to start shooting in Iraq.

What?? I don't know 3 times and the a big f*ck off??!!



They know what the the problem is,
however they cannot provide any evidence to validate the said problem,
and the do not understand why anyone should even care about this evidence,
because they know what the problem is.


Now you are becoming completely incoherrent. Please address the points mentioned in the beginning of this thread. You won't, so you are trying to blow smoke. You are an intellectual coward.


Behold the joy of circular logic!


:rolleyes:

Thank you so very much, you have been most helpful.

Do the initials FOAD mean anything at all to you?
Click to expand...
 
A Unique Personage:

so are they just playing good cop/bad cop with saddam?
Click to expand...

To be honest, I have no bloody idea.

It seems to me that Blair has been rather firm with Bush. If anyone has been playing "good cop/bad cop" it has been elements of the Bush administration--the most obvious being Rumsfeld and Powell. For what it is worth, I do not think both are as "at odds" as the US press likes to think. I think part of the strategy has been to not only "threaten with the stick" but to demonstrate a willingness to use it.

Now, I have no idea if Blair is "good copping" to the Europeans, various Arab nations, or even Iraq on the sidelines.

Crossbow:

Would you please provide some data to support your statement?
Click to expand...

Evidence?

EVIDENCE?!!!

Perhaps, you, the A-Theist, commie, facist, can get your Free Willy God [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.] to explain to me [Right, enough, stop that.--Ed.]

Yes . . . sorry . . . well . . . fair question. However, think about it! Where would forums be if we had to actually have evidence?!

Seriously, to return to my proclamation:

Moi: Saddam has gambled that the world would give up. It has. The sanctions were not working, countries were selling him stuff he should not have. He is not contained.
Click to expand...

I am citing a primarily chapter seven of Pollack's book.

Apologies if I seem to hit you with a "just read the book you unspeakable denizen from the nethers of a yak" insult; however, I do think it would be easier for you to check it out. If you do not mind a rather long bit of quoting--pages--I will do it, it will just take a bit of time.

--J.D.
 
Doctor X said:
A Unique Personage:



To be honest, I have no bloody idea.

It seems to me that Blair has been rather firm with Bush. If anyone has been playing "good cop/bad cop" it has been elements of the Bush administration--the most obvious being Rumsfeld and Powell. For what it is worth, I do not think both are as "at odds" as the US press likes to think. I think part of the strategy has been to not only "threaten with the stick" but to demonstrate a willingness to use it.

Now, I have no idea if Blair is "good copping" to the Europeans, various Arab nations, or even Iraq on the sidelines.

Crossbow:



Evidence?

EVIDENCE?!!!

Perhaps, you, the A-Theist, commie, facist, can get your Free Willy God [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.] to explain to me [Right, enough, stop that.--Ed.]

Yes . . . sorry . . . well . . . fair question. However, think about it! Where would forums be if we had to actually have evidence?!

Seriously, to return to my proclamation:



I am citing a primarily chapter seven of Pollack's book.

Apologies if I seem to hit you with a "just read the book you unspeakable denizen from the nethers of a yak" insult; however, I do think it would be easier for you to check it out. If you do not mind a rather long bit of quoting--pages--I will do it, it will just take a bit of time.

--J.D.
Click to expand...

Don't bother X

Crossbow has revealed himself to be a troll who is attempting to hijack the thread. Why don't we just stick with the 11 points of evidence?? who will refute them??? Or, if indeed they are as irrefutable as I believe them to be then why are we still suffering the fools and ninnies who cry "oil war" with nary a thought in their heads???

-zilla
 
rikzilla said:
Crossbow has revealed himself to be a troll who is attempting to hijack the thread
Click to expand...

Well, he was responding to someone else's point, so I'm inclined to think that hijacking is a touch harsh.

Why don't we just stick with the 11 points of evidence?? who will refute them??? Or, if indeed they are as irrefutable as I believe them to be then why are we still suffering the fools and ninnies who cry "oil war" with nary a thought in their heads???
Click to expand...

I have to admit, from the beginning this entire thread seemed like one big non sequitur to me. Suppose I give you the 10 points. Then what? Is being in violation of UN resolutions a reason for war in itself? Iraq is not the only country to do so. Does this particular resolution state what should happen in event of such a breach? If not, you still need to make the case that each event is a reason for war. And supplying alternative explanations does not automatically rule out the possibility of an oil war. Exactly what is your point?
 
Originally posted by Doctor X
...
I am citing a primarily chapter seven of Pollack's book.

Apologies if I seem to hit you with a "just read the book you unspeakable denizen from the nethers of a yak" insult; however, I do think it would be easier for you to check it out. If you do not mind a rather long bit of quoting--pages--I will do it, it will just take a bit of time.

--J.D.
Click to expand...

Thanks Doctor X!

I assume you are referring to The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. by KM Pollack, yes?

In one of my earlier postings regarding the 11 Points rikzilla made, I said that the International Trade Sanctions were working to prevent Iraq from importing materials that would be used to create WMD.

You and rikzilla disagreed, saying that Iraq has been able to import these materials.

I repeatedly asked for any evidence to support your claim.

rikzilla ran on and on about other activies Iraq was, and is, involved in but he never was able to provide the data I requested. By the way, if he did not have this information, then that is fine with me, I just wish he would have said so. It would have saved both of us alot of trouble.

Anyway, I will try to obtain a copy of the book you mentioned in the near future and get back to you.

Thanks again!
 
Martinm said:


Well, he was responding to someone else's point, so I'm inclined to think that hijacking is a touch harsh.



I have to admit, from the beginning this entire thread seemed like one big non sequitur to me. Suppose I give you the 10 points. Then what? Is being in violation of UN resolutions a reason for war in itself? Iraq is not the only country to do so. Does this particular resolution state what should happen in event of such a breach? If not, you still need to make the case that each event is a reason for war. And supplying alternative explanations does not automatically rule out the possibility of an oil war. Exactly what is your point?
Click to expand...

My point Martin, is that UNSC resolution 687 is the instrument of the cease fire at the end of Desert Storm. Since 687 constitutes the agreement to cease fire, a breach of it by Iraq renders the existing cease fire null and void. This means Desert Storm could legally resume. IMHO it should have resumed in 1995 with the defection of Hussein Kamal....his info was the smoking gun that UNSCOM had been waiting for. The Clinton admin was a study in inaction. They looked the other way when info on Saddam's WMD activities came to light in the 90's. What's happening now should have happened over 7 years ago.

Also the argument I'm making here is that the issues in Iraq are far more complex than just "America is a big evil empire that wants cheap oil". Oil of course is a consideration....I'm not so stupid as to think it's not on the leadership's minds.....but it is not an overriding consideration. Put this way, given all the dynamics at work in Iraq, Iraq would still be next on the WOT hit list whether it had oil or not. It is overly simplistic and intellectually dishonest to keep repeating slogans such as "oil war". This is what I'm trying to illustrate here.

-z
 
Crossbow.

You are welcome.

Not very scientific to say this but my gut says wheres there's a discovered one there are ten that go unseen....like cockroaches I suspect.

(given the radiation resistance of 'roaches, there could be a niche market for top quality bugs for the Iraqi Atomic industry):D
 
The question in my mind remains, does Iraq pose a clear and present danger to the US? If he supports al Quida AND posesses weapons of mass destruction then I think the answer is yes and we should take him out. If not it seems to me that the reasons are more shakey.
 
Ed said:
The question in my mind remains, does Iraq pose a clear and present danger to the US? If he supports al Quida AND posesses weapons of mass destruction then I think the answer is yes and we should take him out. If not it seems to me that the reasons are more shakey.
Click to expand...

True Ed,

The entire reason for posting this thread tho was to show that evidence exists for many and varied breaches of 687. The fact that 687 is breached constitutes a lawful basis for resumption of hostilities. Just because there is lawful basis does not mean we must resume the fighting.....but if/when we decide it's worth fighting for... there can be no question as to the lawfullness of our own actions.

I believe it's obvious the decision has been taken. Personally, I agree with that decision. Without holding Iraq accountable, the UN and the entire WOT becomes a shallow mockery of itself, and the world a breeding ground for more terrorism.

-zilla
 
Looks like the information I posted here about Saddam's trashing of UNSC 687 will added to extensively...and soon.

By Glenn Kessler and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 29, 2003; Page A01


President Bush said last night that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell will brief members of the U.N. Security Council next week on evidence showing that Iraq possesses, and is still engaged in producing, weapons of mass destruction, signaling the start of an intensive campaign to win over international and domestic opinion
Powell to Tell U.N. Council of Arms Evidence
Click to expand...

Should be interesting..... :p

-z
 
Crossbow:

Not to get inbetween a "discussion" between you or anyone else, however, these discussions can become "personal" because they deal with very important subjects--life and death. As open minded as we like to think we are--I know, you all merely think [Stop it!--Ed.]--sorry . . . we wonder why others do not "see to reason."

A bit of a story . . . [No! Stop him!--Ed.]

I had to drive through Nebraska.

For those who live in other countries and American who live in civilized regions, Nebraska is the state that contains th town of East Butt-◊◊◊◊.

There is nothing there.

However, Nebraska has one thing over Kansas--it has National Public Radio. Oddly enough, I could listen to NPR through the whole damn state. Who the hell listens to NPR--rather "liberal" for "furiners" reading--in Nebraska? Possibly a few forgotten KBG agents still waiting for "the signal" to dump in the flouride into the drinking water to "contaminate our precious bodily fluids." [No Dr. Strangelove references!--Ed.]

Anyways, "All Things Considered"--which usually spends two hours interviewing violin gelders of Uraguay--spend two hours interviewing Pollack. He was not a war mongerer and he answered a lot of questions against war. The interview convinced me to read the book. This took place in the beginning of October.

I [Pontificate.--Ed.] mention this because [He wishes to cure insomnia.--Ed.] I am not interested in a "firebrand" book that simply confirms my opinions. So . . . the book is worth the read; it is not pages of "Saddam sucks and America is great . . . Eat Snacky Smores!"

It considers, in detail, the pros and cons of sanctions, for example. He also does not spend his time castigating people he thinks "did wrong."

Anyways, I think you will enjoy it. At the very least I would welcome someone telling me if Pollack is full of crap.

Ed:

While I disagree, it is a fair comment. Again I have to cite Pollack--no I do not get a kickback. He details just what a well-armed Saddam can do . . . wait, we have seen what he has done!

--J.D.
 
Doctor X said:
Anyways, I think you will enjoy it. At the very least I would welcome someone telling me if Pollack is full of crap.
Click to expand...
I have not read the book, but if you'd be interested in what someone else has to say about it, you may want to check this brief review (scroll down the page a bit) from a "retired researcher" in Chicago. He does not say the book is full of crap, but says why he thinks the case for a military invasion is unpersuasive.
 
Thanks for the link to the review Wayne. The guy who reviewed it comes across as a reasonable bloke. Thanks also to you X... I'm adding Pollack to my reading list. I just put a hold on a copy at the good old DC library...I'll let ya know what I think.

I realize I have my own biases....but am also trying hard to see thru them to Wayne's side of the argument...(that's why I'm reading Ritter)....but sadly Ritter's personal problems are casting doubt upon his judgement at this critical time!! :(

-z
 
Crossbow said:
To: rikzilla

The point was made that some countries have illegally sold Iraq products that would enable Iraq to develop new weapons.

And I in turn asked for data to support this statement.

Now then, the article you posted does not provide any of the data that I requested.

If you can actually my question, then please do so.

Thanks much!
Click to expand...

From BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/2712903.stm

A court in the German city of Mannheim has convicted two businessmen of supplying weapons-making equipment to Iraq in violation of UN sanctions.
Click to expand...

Last December, Tageszeitung newspaper reported that over 80 German companies were listed in Iraq's weapons report to the UN.
Several of these were still involved in Iraq last year, thereby breaking the UN weapons embargo.
Of further embarrassment to Germany is that - according to the newspaper article - German companies make up more than half of the total number of institutions listed in the report.
Click to expand...
 
Wayne:

Regarding the review:

Its case for invading Iraq, however, fails to convince me that the danger from Saddam is serious and imminent and that the danger cannot be addressed in any peaceable way. Nor does it show that the destruction caused by an invasion would be outweighed by the benefits.
Click to expand...

it seems to be merely the reader's opinion. For what it is worth, I feel Pollack directly discusses these issues and makes a convincing case--particularly with regards to how even innocent lives lost in an invasion compare to the routine deaths caused by the regime.

I, too, would like to see him debate Ritter. I have seen Richard Butler debate Ritter and dissect him.

--J.D.
 
Ritter once said that Butler was nothing more than Bush's marionette. It's amusing to me that no one can just disagree with Ritter; it seems that anyone questioning his assertions is yet another player in the shadowy anti-Ritter alliance.
Ritter's ego knows no bounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom