1
   

Resolution to pull out of Iraq by 2006 - lead by Republican

 
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 07:10 am
woiyo wrote:
PS: I am NOT calling for troop removal. I have CALLED for troop removal months ago.


Yes you did, and you made clear you felt there was an important distinction between those two positions. My oversight.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 07:17 am
woiyo wrote:
The UN validated our actions by passing those resolutions. What good is a resolution if not backed up by some event and not "resolved"?


You can't have it both ways. If you are going to use UN resolutions to justify an invasion of Iraq, then you have to pay heed to the fact that the UN also called for inspectors to be in Iraq to find out if Saddam Hussein indeed had the weapons that would justify the invasion.

Bush ordered the UN inspectors out of Iraq on his own. He invaded on his own. Bush can't be a cowboy and decide to invade, then turn around and say the UN backed him when it didn't.

When you said that Bush had a "search warrant", you meant the UN resolutions. Well, they never got around to finishing that search warrant. Bush went out on his own.

If you want to justify Bush doing this all by himself or with England, fine. Just don't say he had any UN backing for what he did-he did not.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 07:56 am
For 8 years, the UN passed Resolution after Resolution and did nothing to back those resolutions up.

Again, it got tot he point where the security of the US was a risk and the Pesident did what had to be done and it was Constitutional. here was no need to "ask" permission.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 08:17 am
Woiyo:

Then don't say the US had a search warrant. The UN already was executing the search warrant, by means of the inspectors. Bush ordered the inspectors out, and invaded.

As it turns out, there were no WMD's. As the inspectors were finding out.

Which is why Bush invaded, since WMD's were how he got the American public to support this invasion.

Bush did not have the search warrant. If you want to defend his actions by other arguments, fine. But the UN was executing it's OWN search warrant, and Hussein was cooperating, (at least in the second round of inspections, the one underway when Bush invaded).
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 10:39 am
WRONG. The inspectors never found anything of substance and could not determine what happened to them. That was the problem.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 02:07 pm
Woiyo
Could it be they never found anything because there was nothing to find. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 02:13 pm
au1929 wrote:
Woiyo
Could it be they never found anything because there was nothing to find. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


U.S. Uncovers Vast Hide-Out of Iraqi Rebels

Remember this? Not too long ago, right? Who knows if there are more of these. Maybe the one holding all the unaccountable WMD's will be found tomorrow who knows. We know Saddam had them, We know Saddam failed to account for them, we know the inspection teams have not found them. I suspect space aliens did not take them, therefore they are somewhere.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 03:46 pm
Someone like Hussein cannot be permitted to have weapons so powerful that one can take out New York City. Based on our history with him, there was a real chance he still had them. He had been obstructive and deceptive with the inspectors for years. After a dozen years, we couldn't get the guy to just show us the proof that the weapons and programs were gone. Even had we not had his promise to disarm in his Gulf War 1 surrender, simple self-preservation would have justified us in invading. The situation will certainly arise again as the advance of technology brings WMD within the reach of more and more countries and groups.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 06:55 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Someone like Hussein cannot be permitted to have weapons so powerful that one can take out New York City. Based on our history with him, there was a real chance he still had them. He had been obstructive and deceptive with the inspectors for years. After a dozen years, we couldn't get the guy to just show us the proof that the weapons and programs were gone. Even had we not had his promise to disarm in his Gulf War 1 surrender, simple self-preservation would have justified us in invading. The situation will certainly arise again as the advance of technology brings WMD within the reach of more and more countries and groups.


Ah, yes.. He wouldn't show us proof of destroying something that we had no evidence he ever had in the first place. Sure.. Brandon, that makes perfect sense if you are trying to set up an invasion.


You can make up all the facts you want Brandon. It doesn't change the reality. There was no huge stockpile of weapons that Saddam had refused to account for. There were SUSPICIONS that he MIGHT have HAD them.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 07:03 pm
McGentrix wrote:
au1929 wrote:
Woiyo
Could it be they never found anything because there was nothing to find. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


U.S. Uncovers Vast Hide-Out of Iraqi Rebels

Remember this? Not too long ago, right? Who knows if there are more of these. Maybe the one holding all the unaccountable WMD's will be found tomorrow who knows. We know Saddam had them, We know Saddam failed to account for them, we know the inspection teams have not found them. I suspect space aliens did not take them, therefore they are somewhere.


The "unaccountable" WMD? Don't you mean the "FICTIONAL" ones?

Cite the ones that Saddam FAILED to account for with the evidence that he had them. Suspicions he MAY have produced Anthrax don't count as facts he had them. When you read the UNSCOM reports of failed to account for bio and chemical agents, they are almost all speculative based on what he COULD have done. Yeast was missing that was capable of growing Anthrax. Yeast isn't exactly a WMD.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 07:07 pm
woiyo wrote:
WRONG. The inspectors never found anything of substance and could not determine what happened to them. That was the problem.


What couldn't they determine woiyo? Be specific with quotes from the UNSCOM reports. Lets examine what items of substance couldn't be found. Cite them and we can discuss them.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 07:23 pm
Here is the report to the UN in 1999 that pretty comprehensively lists the weapons declared, not declared but found and destroyed or unnaccounted for.

1999 report on disarmament in Iraq

I would love to see which ones Brandon, woiyo, and McGentrix think were missing in large quantities.

I won't hold my breath while waiting.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 07:47 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Someone like Hussein cannot be permitted to have weapons so powerful that one can take out New York City. Based on our history with him, there was a real chance he still had them. He had been obstructive and deceptive with the inspectors for years. After a dozen years, we couldn't get the guy to just show us the proof that the weapons and programs were gone. Even had we not had his promise to disarm in his Gulf War 1 surrender, simple self-preservation would have justified us in invading. The situation will certainly arise again as the advance of technology brings WMD within the reach of more and more countries and groups.


1 - Hussein is in custody and is not a threat.
2 - His sons are dead (it only took a couple days of heavy artillery to do it)
3 -
Quote:
simple self-preservation would have justified us in invading

This makes no sense at all
4 -
Quote:
The situation will certainly arise again as the advance of technology brings WMD within the reach of more and more countries and groups.

and as these countries and groups are suspected of doing this the U.S. will invade them??
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 07:53 pm
Quote, "simple self-preservation would have justified us in invading" Self-preservation from what, exactly? Lies that were used by Bush and Powell to justify this war?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 06:09 am
Parados asks...

"What couldn't they determine woiyo? Be specific with quotes from the UNSCOM reports. Lets examine what items of substance couldn't be found. Cite them and we can discuss them. "

Here you go Tiger!!!!

26. Analysis at the laboratories designated by the Commission has detected the presence of degradation products of nerve agents, in particular VX, on a number of warhead remnants which had been excavated at the sites of the unilateral destruction.

In one aspect related to the destruction of BW warheads, the Commission, after consulting a group of international experts, assessed that Iraq's declaration that 15 warheads had been destroyed simultaneously conflicted with physical evidence collected at the declared location of their unilateral destruction.

28. The full and verifiable accounting for proscribed missile conventional warheads remains outstanding in the verification of the premise that Iraq has not retained any holding of proscribed missiles and that all proscribed missiles and their warheads indeed had been destroyed. Issues related to remnants of warheads that have not been recovered, but which have been declared by Iraq as unilaterally destroyed (some 25 imported warheads and some 25 Iraqi manufactured warheads), remain unresolved in the accounting of proscribed warheads that Iraq claimed to have destroyed unilaterally.

29. The full accounting for imported proscribed missile propellants is outstanding. Any retention of such propellants would be an indication that not all proscribed missiles were destroyed as claimed by Iraq.

However, a dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former CW storage facility in the period 1997-1998. The chemical sampling of these munitions, in April 1998, revealed that the mustard was still of the highest quality. After seven years, the purity of mustard ranged between 94 and 97%.

35. The degree of verification achieved is not satisfactory. Iraq declared that it had produced a total of 3.9 tonnes of VX. Iraq provided documents on production in 1988, but failed to provide verifiable evidence for its activities in 1990.
\\
38. Since August 1995, Iraq has submitted a number of "Full, Final and Complete Disclosures" (FFCD) of its declared BW programme. These declarations have been assessed by the Commission and by international experts as incomplete, inadequate and containing substantial deficiencies.

39. In the Commission's view, Iraq has not complied with requirements of the relevant Security Council resolutions on the disclosure of its biological warfare programme. A full, complete and verifiable disclosure of all its biological weapons activities needs to be presented by Iraq.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 07:11 am
woiyo wrote:
Parados asks...

"What couldn't they determine woiyo? Be specific with quotes from the UNSCOM reports. Lets examine what items of substance couldn't be found. Cite them and we can discuss them. "

Here you go Tiger!!!!

26. Analysis at the laboratories designated by the Commission has detected the presence of degradation products of nerve agents, in particular VX, on a number of warhead remnants which had been excavated at the sites of the unilateral destruction.


Degraded products of nerve agents are WMD how? The issue is the statement by Iraq that they never filled warheads but then it appears they did. This is not a case of items not being found but a question of what Iraq said vs what was found. The paragraph goes on to say...
"Clarification by Iraq of these issues as recommended by the meeting.." Hmm.. nothing about missing WMD.

Quote:

In one aspect related to the destruction of BW warheads, the Commission, after consulting a group of international experts, assessed that Iraq's declaration that 15 warheads had been destroyed simultaneously conflicted with physical evidence collected at the declared location of their unilateral destruction.
You left off the FIRST sentence of this section.. "27. The Commission found that Iraq's explanations on procedures and methods of unilateral destruction of the special warheads were, in general, plausible." A plausible explanation of destruction does not proof make that they weren't destroyed. The paragraph doesn't say they weren't destroyed but that Iraq wasn't truthful in its statement of WHEN they were destroyed. Iraq claims they were all destroyed at the same time but the physical evidence points to 2 different destruction times. Iraq hid some of the warheads then destroyed them later claiming they were all destroyed with the first destruction. "The discrepancies between Iraq's declarations and the physical evidence collected need to be resolved. In addition, the Commission's investigations showed that, despite repeated attempts, Iraq had not provided the true locations of the hiding, immediately prior to the declared unilateral destruction, of at least half of the special warheads including abovementioned 15 BW warheads. "

Quote:
28. The full and verifiable accounting for proscribed missile conventional warheads remains outstanding in the verification of the premise that Iraq has not retained any holding of proscribed missiles and that all proscribed missiles and their warheads indeed had been destroyed. Issues related to remnants of warheads that have not been recovered, but which have been declared by Iraq as unilaterally destroyed (some 25 imported warheads and some 25 Iraqi manufactured warheads), remain unresolved in the accounting of proscribed warheads that Iraq claimed to have destroyed unilaterally.


I could swear that this paragraph says CONVENTIONAL warheads. It doesn't say a thing about WMD.

Quote:
29. The full accounting for imported proscribed missile propellants is outstanding. Any retention of such propellants would be an indication that not all proscribed missiles were destroyed as claimed by Iraq.
Propellant is an INDICATION not all were destroyed. Not much there but speculation.

Quote:
However, a dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former CW storage facility in the period 1997-1998. The chemical sampling of these munitions, in April 1998, revealed that the mustard was still of the highest quality. After seven years, the purity of mustard ranged between 94 and 97%.
In 1991 Iraq declared they had LOST some munitions containing Mustard gas. Those munitions were never found except for a few here and there. Looks like they were lost based on present facts. Of course the mustard would have further degraded by 2003, another 6 years.

Quote:
35. The degree of verification achieved is not satisfactory. Iraq declared that it had produced a total of 3.9 tonnes of VX. Iraq provided documents on production in 1988, but failed to provide verifiable evidence for its activities in 1990.
"failed to provide verifiable evidence for activities." No evidence of any WMD here.
Quote:

38. Since August 1995, Iraq has submitted a number of "Full, Final and Complete Disclosures" (FFCD) of its declared BW programme. These declarations have been assessed by the Commission and by international experts as incomplete, inadequate and containing substantial deficiencies.
Gee. Saddam wasn't quite truthful about everything he had. Is that a reason to invade and remove a ruler? Because he wasn't truthful about his warlike activity?

Quote:

39. In the Commission's view, Iraq has not complied with requirements of the relevant Security Council resolutions on the disclosure of its biological warfare programme. A full, complete and verifiable disclosure of all its biological weapons activities needs to be presented by Iraq.
Yep, the only thing Saddam seems to be guilty of is not being completely honest. Or maybe he was just given faulty intelligence. No real evidence of any WMD that he refused to give up.

No games woiyo... your "them" refers to WMD
woiyo wrote:
WRONG. The inspectors never found anything of substance and could not determine what happened to them. That was the problem.
You provided not much evidence of missing WMD. Just a lot of speculative arguments of Saddam not being truthful.

As for your claim the inspectors never found anything of substance. That one is laughable when compared to the report.


"The Commission identified remnants of engines from 83 out of the 85 missiles declared."

Fixed launch sites (completed or under construction) 56
Destroyed under UNSCOM supervision or their destruction certified by UNSCOM.

Of 352 warheads for Scuds and Al hassain missiles, 298-308 are confirmed destroyed. (The remaining ones are the missing 50 you mentioned earlier)

Unscom confirmed or witnessed the use or destruction of 818 tonnes of rocket fuel.

Of 127,941 munitions capable of holding chemical weapons, Unscom has accepted or witnessed the destruction of over 125,000. The only ones not accounted for are 2000 unfilled ones and 550 missing ones filled with mustard (That looks pretty SUBSTANTIVE to me.)

Of 412 tonnes of Chemical Weapon agents, 411 were destroyed by Unscom
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 07:42 am
parados wrote:
Of 412 tonnes of Chemical Weapon agents, 411 were destroyed by Unscom


Any idea where that last tonne is? Any idea how many that 1 tonne can kill?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 07:53 am
McGentrix wrote:
parados wrote:
Of 412 tonnes of Chemical Weapon agents, 411 were destroyed by Unscom


Any idea where that last tonne is? Any idea how many that 1 tonne can kill?


From the UNSCOM report.....
Quote:

1.5 tonnes of CW agent VX were discarded unilaterally by Iraq and remain unaccounted for.



Any evidence they didn't discard it?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 08:00 am
parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
parados wrote:
Of 412 tonnes of Chemical Weapon agents, 411 were destroyed by Unscom


Any idea where that last tonne is? Any idea how many that 1 tonne can kill?


From the UNSCOM report.....
Quote:

1.5 tonnes of CW agent VX were discarded unilaterally by Iraq and remain unaccounted for.



Any evidence they didn't discard it?


Any evidence they did? I would rather err on the side of Saddam being a murderous, brutal dictator willing to keep his chemical aresenal away from the prying eyes and hands of the US than to err on the benevolent good word of Saddam.

Sorry, but that's just me.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 08:10 am
McGentrix wrote:

Any evidence they did? I would rather err on the side of Saddam being a murderous, brutal dictator willing to keep his chemical aresenal away from the prying eyes and hands of the US than to err on the benevolent good word of Saddam.

Sorry, but that's just me.


McGentrix wrote:

Remember this? Not too long ago, right? Who knows if there are more of these. Maybe the one holding all the unaccountable WMD's will be found tomorrow who knows. We know Saddam had them, We know Saddam failed to account for them, we know the inspection teams have not found them. I suspect space aliens did not take them, therefore they are somewhere.


It appears Saddam did account for them. You just don't want to believe him.

It appears he was telling the truth in spite of your red herring of "space aliens." So, let me ask again.. What verifiable WMD did Saddam have in 2003? Your statement makes it appear that they do exist. Is that what you intended to say?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 06/05/2025 at 05:53:06