• 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.

Doctor X said:
Well . . . at least it was not from Tony Blair's wife's spiritual advisor. . . .

--J. "Have the Inspectors Tried Dowsing?" D.
Click to expand...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!....Choke...ack!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

(thanks for the belly laugh!!!)

Maybe I'll send UNSCOM inspectors a case of Penta water in order to super-hydrate them.....and add some q-bracelets and magnetic insoles to help their stamina on long nights on WMD-hunting!!

:D :D :D

Thanks for bumping my favorite thread.....and giving me a laugh-headache.

-zilla
 
I'll make this brief since I have been having problems with my cable modem service since Tuesday night. It has been inoperable most of the time. For a brief period Wednesday morning it came back to life. You'll notice that my last post was accidentally submitted twice. That's because the modem started to go on the fritz again. I called the cable company Wednesday and I'll have to wait till Monday afternoon for a service tech to come out. So before it fritzes out again:

From what I have seen of replays of parts of Powell's presentation, the Bush administration was right: there was no "smoking gun." There was evidence short of proof, yet compelling, that Saddam is cheating on disarmament. I'm not shocked. However, I still don't see the case for war, especially when one thinks in terms of costs/benefits.

If Saddam is hiding something, why not take the time to uncover as much as possible and disarm him of those weapons instead of him using them on Israel and US troops?

More importantly, if the matter is breach of a UN resolution, then it should be up to the UN, not the US, to decide when force should be used--especially since those short-range weapons do NOT pose a threat to the US.

The "evidence" of a Hussein-al Qaida link was laughable and one more piece of evidence of the lack of credibility of the Bush administration.
 
FYI, former inspector Scott Ritter damns Powell's evidence.
Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council on Wednesday was a "compelling case and sound argument" only for the unknowing, Ritter said in a lecture in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.

But for those with knowledge of the disarmament process, the report was nothing but "smoking mirrors, nothing to do with reality (and) plain wrong," Ritter said.
Click to expand...
Ritter questioned Powell's "improper" briefing on anthrax, in which he said UN experts estimated that Iraq could have produced 25,000 litres, saying stocks, if they did indeed exist, had gone well past their shelf life.

"Powell gave no substantive evidence" on alleged chemical weapons programs, said Ritter, a former intelligence officer in the US Marines who was once dubbed a "cowboy" by UN staff and diplomats in Baghdad for his intrusive inspection procedures.

Ritter also dismissed photographs and radio intercepts Powell offered as evidence to the Security Council.

"What he presented is not hard evidence ... because the context, frequencies, history (of use) of the frequencies and who the individuals (talking) are must be known to ascertain whether they are relevant or not," he said of the tape recordings.
Click to expand...

Here are the impressions of some other experts.

Experts find some allegations on chemicals and nuclear weapons 'striking and significant'
Click to expand...
 
Wayne,

Ritter is a guy whose opinion I sought and respected. Now we come to find out he's an internet pedophile.

I know it shouldn't poison the well....but well now here you are asking me to consider which of these guys is telling the truth.

The Secretary of State, much respected ex-General Colin Powell
or
Scott Ritter,..ex-UNSCOM team leader...current private citizen and sexual predator of children over the internet.

Sorry, but not only is Colin Powell "in the loop" and likely to have better info...Scott Ritter is a scum-bag.

-zilla
 
I had to rescue this thread from oblivion. (several times) It has existed since 1/24/03 and not one person has been able to refute the facts it lists. So many anti-war and anti-American posters...and no one cares to come here and challenge my assertion of these facts. That's pretty funny. The very best they can do to against this thread is to hope I stop bumping it and let it die.

Since 1/24/03 more facts have come to light. Those listed by Colin Powell for instance. But what's the point of my listing those facts? No one can even refute the pre-existing facts. UNSC res 687 was a cease fire agreement. It's been broken over and over again. UNSC res 1441 lists some 15 resolutions which have been flaunted by Iraq.

So what's the point of France's argument??? That inspections can work if given more time and more inspectors?? How many years have there been inspectors??? 12 or so?? Do the French expect another month or so to make a difference?? If so they are not very smart....if not, then what's up their sleeve?

-zilla
 
rikzilla said:
I had to rescue this thread from oblivion. (several times) It has existed since 1/24/03 and not one person has been able to refute the facts it lists. So many anti-war and anti-American posters...and no one cares to come here and challenge my assertion of these facts. That's pretty funny. The very best they can do to against this thread is to hope I stop bumping it and let it die.

Since 1/24/03 more facts have come to light. Those listed by Colin Powell for instance. But what's the point of my listing those facts? No one can even refute the pre-existing facts. UNSC res 687 was a cease fire agreement. It's been broken over and over again. UNSC res 1441 lists some 15 resolutions which have been flaunted by Iraq.

So what's the point of France's argument??? That inspections can work if given more time and more inspectors?? How many years have there been inspectors??? 12 or so?? Do the French expect another month or so to make a difference?? If so they are not very smart....if not, then what's up their sleeve?

-zilla
Click to expand...

bump

yup....still relevant
 
bump...

This is still relevant to various threads .....these are facts....
sorry, but they will not go away.
 
Nice to know that the Iraqis are "considering" destroying somme of their banned weapons.

Kumbaya. . . .

--J. "I Have a Bridge to Sell" D.
 
c0rbin said:
Rikzilla,

I agree that Saddam is a bad man and is lying to the world about his WMD programs.

But, so far, Iraq has been unable to flex any muscle.

The US is unpopular right now and cannot find the support for an attack that GW Bush has been quoted as saying needs to happen "right now."

What's the rush? Why "right now"?
Click to expand...

US national security is. 9/11 is. This is the reason pre-emptive strikes and "regime change" have become US policy. Before 9/11 these measures would only have been taken in Rush Limbaugh's wet dreams. Now they've become mainstream Bush admin policy. Only the sea-change of 9/11 can account for it. It's overdue IMHO. The books I've read sho clearly that we had enough evidence to take action back in 1995.

-zilla
 
compile

rikzilla

anyway you could update this post with another list/archive of more current evidence even though the original list hasnt been disproven ?
 
Great thread rikzilla!

You have posted un-rebuttal evidence that no one has yet to refute.
 
Baker said:
Great thread rikzilla!

You have posted un-rebuttal evidence that no one has yet to refute.
Click to expand...

Thanks man! :D

This thread is my baby. 4 books on Iraq and UNSCOM. It was fascinating reading,...but I've got a belly-full of Saddam....I've gotten to the point that I know more than I wanted to about this creep. He's a sickening monster...much worse than even CNN or Fox has portrayed him.

A strange case of TMI on my part! :( However, the deafening silence of the left in rebuttal to this thread helped me a great deal to form my pro-war opinion.

I voted against Bush in 2000, and was among those who thought the Supreme Court was wrong to stop the FL recounts. But since then Bush has done nothing but impress me. The man gets results!

-zilla
 
Any idea on when Iraq is going to use its alleged WMD that it was supposedly so eager to use against the US? So far, the only thing they've fired has been conventional. Where's the beef?
 
Wayne Grabert said:
Any idea on when Iraq is going to use its alleged WMD that it was supposedly so eager to use against the US? So far, the only thing they've fired has been conventional. Where's the beef?
Click to expand...

Lets hope we're not giving them the chance. Of course...it's not even nearly over yet Wayne. :(
 
Wayne Grabert said:
Any idea on when Iraq is going to use its alleged WMD that it was supposedly so eager to use against the US? So far, the only thing they've fired has been conventional. Where's the beef?
Click to expand...

Simple reasons really.

He still retains sympathy in various places and he's not desperate enough to lose that yet.

As soon as he does use them every country will be forced to distance themselves from him for fear of being seen to approve his use of WMD. (that they claimed he didnt have in the first place)

Even now he revels in the divided opinion he has created.

So you see, he wont use them untill he dosnt care what anyone thinks, let him get desperate enough.

some time on monday I would guess.
 
A paper about resolutions and the legality of the war can be found here. It is very thorough and even includes a response to this old chestnut.

One hears the argument (often from people who call themselves "realists") that this is no time for legal niceties. They point out that the world is confronted by a serious and imminent threat, and if the UN Charter is standing in the way of action to meet the threat, then the UN Charter must be brushed to one side. If the UN is incapable of meeting the threat, it is argued, others must take over from the UN and deal with the problem, even if it means going against the UN Charter - otherwise Saddam's sinister preparations will go unchecked. The world should be thankful - so the argument goes - that the US and its partners are coming to the rescue of the UN in its moment of weakness.

This line of argument suffers from several flaws.
Click to expand...

Is that any help Rik?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom