What bothers me about the Dems right now....

A Lone Voice wrote:

You make my case for those who, when they cannot forward a comprehensible argument, go on the attack. Check out YOUR first post.

My first post was a satire of your screed.

www.dictionary.com will give the definition.

You made an outlandish post about the position of others. I made an outlandish post about the position of others in order to highlight how outlandish your position was. Maybe you can get one of your "buddys" to explain it to you.

I'm talking about the dems who beat the war drums as loud as the neocons. The ones who you refer to as repub lights?

With that said, I truly believe these some politicians are now using the failure of the US in Iraq just as they were earlier beating the war drums. There is nothing honorable in their actions.

At this point, they have invested themselves deeply into the US losing, and pulling out of Iraq. If this latest surge is successful, what do you think their reaction is going to be?

Is it wrong of me to question their motives? I would think the sincere anti-war folk would be questioning them, too.

None of the 3 lead to invasion being "necessary". Invasion was a choice but it was hardly "necessary."

1. Ambiguous evidence doesn't lead to one choice. It leads to many choices. The primary choice would be to find better information.

2. Saddam's long pattern of hiding evidence and obstructing inspectors doesn't lead to one choice. Again it leads to many. "Trust but verify" comes to mind. (Your arguments from 1997 were not current with the circumstances in 2003. One could as easily list Bush's drinking and driving charges from the 60's as evidence he still does it but it doesn't make it true. )

3. Saddam having nukes is not an argument. It is a scare tactic. Anyone having nukes could lead to wrong consequences.

That doesn't lead to the necessary choice of imprisoning anyone and everyone that even mentions nukes.

The lack of evidence of nukes does not lead to an invasion as the only necessary solution. In the 12 years since Saddam was ordered to destroy his WMD he had not annexed or threatened anyone. It appears that the current containment was working. Again, you use out of date facts to try to support your "necessary" invasion.

Your case of events leading to invasion being "necessary" is logically faulty. In reality what the Bush administration did was take the LACK of evidence and used it to build its case. There was no hard evidence that supported Saddam having any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. There wasn't even much in the way of circumstantial evidence. There was no evidence that Saddam had plans to use these non existent weapons. There was no evidence that Saddam had plans to threaten or annex any neighboring countries. There was no evidence he had plans to vaporize cities. There was no hard evidence he had WMD. There was only a lack of confirmation that all his precursors, and possible delivery systems had been destroyed.

Again, we had been trying for over a decade, and had he been continuing his former development programs in hiding, we might have had a finite time window of opportunity. Even a moderate probability of a monumental disaster must be considered to be very serious.

It does, however indicate that he had at one time, and possibly still had, an explicit intention of developing WMD secretly while deceiving inspectors, which made him someone who ought not to be trusted. An evil dictator having WMD is a bit more serious than an individual with a drinking problem. They do not pose comparable levels of risk.

No one has asserted the necessity of imprisoning anyone and everyone who even mentions nukes. Some of us have asserted the necessity of resolving the issue of a terribly evil ruler striving to achieve WMD and lying about it.

When there is a reasonable chance that someone like Saddam Hussein is continuing past efforts to create nukes and artificial plagues, it's a very drastic situation. The idea that someone with these weapons can be contained is the real idea that's out of date. How can you contain weapons that can be disassembled, smuggled into a target country, and detonated from within? I would just love to hear an answer to that.

There is rarely evidence of plans, but this individual had tried to annex neighbors more than once, and was clearly a terribly, terribly evil man. There was indeed evidence that in the past he had had programs to develop these weapons, and had hid these programs and lied about them. Were someone like him to attain a group of these weapons and the means to make more, all of these things would be extremely realistic possibilities. Vaporizing cities is what nukes do, remember? His possible delivery systems had most certainly not been destroyed, since nuclear or biological weapons could be delivered in a suitcase or a mailed crate.

parados wrote:

2. Saddam's long pattern of hiding evidence and obstructing inspectors doesn't lead to one choice. Again it leads to many. "Trust but verify" comes to mind. (Your arguments from 1997 were not current with the circumstances in 2003. One could as easily list Bush's drinking and driving charges from the 60's as evidence he still does it but it doesn't make it true. )

It does, however indicate that he had at one time, and possibly still had, an explicit intention of developing WMD secretly while deceiving inspectors, which made him someone who ought not to be trusted. An evil dictator having WMD is a bit more serious than an individual with a drinking problem. They do not pose comparable levels of risk.

Nice try.

I throw out a few hundred words, and you come back with the typical loser attack. One sentence, full of venom and hate.

Now you claim it was only satire?

You think it was outlandish. Others agreed with it, didn't they?

I think I've recognized the type of A2K troll you seem to be. A quick post here and there, belittling others and never really bringing up any original thoughts of your own. Quick to jump on the bandwagon of those who think like you, and quick to attack those you disagree with.

That's why people like you, if you ever came into power, scare the hell out of me. Hence, my comment about people like you putting people like me into a camp.

You would have made a great Nazi Party member.

But hey, I'm glad you finally found a dictionary. You might try using it yourself so you don't sound so illiterate...

Quote:

Again, we had been trying for over a decade, and had he been continuing his former development programs in hiding, we might have had a finite time window of opportunity. Even a moderate probability of a monumental disaster must be considered to be very serious.

Which programs were continuing in 2003 when we invaded? There were none that I am aware of.

Quote:

It does, however indicate that he had at one time, and possibly still had, an explicit intention of developing WMD secretly while deceiving inspectors, which made him someone who ought not to be trusted. An evil dictator having WMD is a bit more serious than an individual with a drinking problem. They do not pose comparable levels of risk.

Both however show the same faulty logic.

Quote:

No one has asserted the necessity of imprisoning anyone and everyone who even mentions nukes. Some of us have asserted the necessity of resolving the issue of a terribly evil ruler striving to achieve WMD and lying about it.

A necessity that didn't require an invasion as evidenced by the present negotiation with North Korea.

Quote:

When there is a reasonable chance that someone like Saddam Hussein is continuing past efforts to create nukes and artificial plagues, it's a very drastic situation. The idea that someone with these weapons can be contained is the real idea that's out of date. How can you contain weapons that can be disassembled, smuggled into a target country, and detonated from within? I would just love to hear an answer to that.

That would be as opposed to the CERTAINTY that North Korea has nukes? The "out of date" idea is the new one being implemented in North Korea. It seems some now think it will work. Do you agree with dealing with North Korea or should we invade? (You can insert your relative standard at this point.)

Quote:

There is rarely evidence of plans, but this individual had tried to annex neighbors more than once, and was clearly a terribly, terribly evil man. There was indeed evidence that in the past he had had programs to develop these weapons, and had hid these programs and lied about them. Were someone like him to attain a group of these weapons and the means to make more, all of these things would be extremely realistic possibilities. Vaporizing cities is what nukes do, remember? His possible delivery systems had most certainly not been destroyed, since nuclear or biological weapons could be delivered in a suitcase or a mailed crate.

The scare tactic without any evidence again I see.

2. Saddam's long pattern of hiding evidence and obstructing inspectors doesn't lead to one choice. Again it leads to many. "Trust but verify" comes to mind. (Your arguments from 1997 were not current with the circumstances in 2003. One could as easily list Bush's drinking and driving charges from the 60's as evidence he still does it but it doesn't make it true. )

There were inspections that were working at the time of the invasion, they could have been allowed to continue. Instead they had to leave so Bush could invade and now we have this horrible mess which could have been avoided. End of story.

The inspections had been going on for a dozen years without producing verifiable or convincing proof, and still weren't producing verifiable or convincing proof, something Iraq could easily have supplied.

As delivered







SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003



Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC

Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix









Mr. President,





For nearly three years, I have been coming to the Security Council presenting the quarterly reports of UNMOVIC. They have described our many preparations for the resumption of inspections in Iraq. The 12th quarterly report is the first that describes three months of inspections. They come after four years without inspections. The report was finalized ten days ago and a number of relevant events have taken place since then. Today's statement will supplement the circulated report on these points to bring the Council up-to-date.



Inspection process


Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.



Some practical matters, which were not settled by the talks, Dr. ElBaradei and I had with the Iraqi side in Vienna prior to inspections or in resolution 1441 (2002), have been resolved at meetings, which we have had in Baghdad. Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones were overcome. This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.







American U-2 and French Mirage surveillance aircraft already give us valuable imagery, supplementing satellite pictures and we would expect soon to be able to add night vision capability through an aircraft offered to us by the Russian Federation. We also expect to add low-level, close area surveillance through drones provided by Germany. We are grateful not only to the countries, which place these valuable tools at our disposal, but also to the States, most recently Cyprus, which has agreed to the stationing of aircraft on their territory.





Documents and interviews


Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq's Declaration of 7 December did not bring new documentary evidence. I hope that efforts in this respect, including the appointment of a governmental commission, will give significant results. When proscribed items are deemed unaccounted for it is above all credible accounts that is needed - or the proscribed items, if they exist.



Where authentic documents do not become available, interviews with persons, who may have relevant knowledge and experience, may be another way of obtaining evidence. UNMOVIC has names of such persons in its records and they are among the people whom we seek to interview. In the last month, Iraq has provided us with the names of many persons, who may be relevant sources of information, in particular, persons who took part in various phases of the unilateral destruction of biological and chemical weapons, and proscribed missiles in 1991. The provision of names prompts two reflections:



The first is that with such detailed information existing regarding those who took part in the unilateral destruction, surely there must also remain records regarding the quantities and other data concerning the various items destroyed.





The second reflection is that with relevant witnesses available it becomes even more important to be able to conduct interviews in modes and locations, which allow us to be confident that the testimony is given without outside influence. While the Iraqi side seems to have encouraged interviewees not to request the presence of Iraqi officials (so-called minders) or the taping of the interviews, conditions ensuring the absence of undue influences are difficult to attain inside Iraq. Interviews outside the country might provide such assurance. It is our intention to request such interviews shortly. Nevertheless, despite remaining shortcomings, interviews are useful. Since we started requesting interviews, 38 individuals were asked for private interviews, of which 10 accepted under our terms, 7 of these during the last week.





As I noted on 14 February, intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks and, in particular, that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist. Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found. Iraq is expected to assist in the development of credible ways to conduct random checks of ground transportation.



Inspectors are also engaged in examining Iraq's programme for Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs). A number of sites have been inspected with data being collected to assess the range and other capabilities of the various models found. Inspections are continuing in this area.



There have been reports, denied from the Iraqi side, that proscribed activities are conducted underground. Iraq should provide information on any underground structure suitable for the production or storage of WMD. During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.



I should add that, both for the monitoring of ground transportation and for the inspection of underground facilities, we would need to increase our staff in Iraq. I am not talking about a doubling of the staff. I would rather have twice the amount of high quality information about sites to inspect than twice the number of expert inspectors to send.





Recent developments



On 14 February, I reported to the Council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps, which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there was still relatively little tangible progress to note. Hence, the cautious formulations in the report before you.



As of today, there is more. While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament - indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed. However, I must add that no destruction has happened today. I hope it's a temporary break.



To date, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including 4 training missiles, 2 combat warheads, 1 launcher and 5 engines have been destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision. Work is continuing to identify and inventory the parts and equipment associated with the Al Samoud 2 programme.



Two ?'reconstituted' casting chambers used in the production of solid propellant missiles have been destroyed and the remnants melted or encased in concrete.



The legality of the Al Fatah missile is still under review, pending further investigation and measurement of various parameters of that missile.



More papers on anthrax, VX and missiles have recently been provided. Many have been found to restate what Iraq had already declared, some will require further study and discussion.



There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs. Bomb fragments were also found. Samples have been taken. The investigation of the destruction site could, in the best case, allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site. It should be followed by a serious and credible effort to determine the separate issue of how many R-400 type bombs were produced. In this, as in other matters, inspection work is moving on and may yield results.



Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax, said to be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to interpretation. Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced.



With respect to VX, Iraq has recently suggested a similar method to quantify a VX precursor stated to have been unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.



Iraq has also recently informed us that, following the adoption of the presidential decree prohibiting private individuals and mixed companies from engaging in work related to WMD, further legislation on the subject is to be enacted. This appears to be in response to a letter from UNMOVIC requesting clarification of the issue.



What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January.



This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear.



Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:



The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.



It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.





Mr. President,



Members of the Council may relate most of what I have said to resolution 1441 (2002), but UNMOVIC is performing work under several resolutions of the Security Council. The quarterly report before you is submitted in accordance with resolution 1284 (1999), which not only created UNMOVIC but also continues to guide much of our work. Under the time lines set by the resolution, the results of some of this work is to be reported to the Council before the end of this month. Let me be more specific.



Resolution 1284 (1999) instructs UNMOVIC to "address unresolved disarmament issues" and to identify "key remaining disarmament tasks" and the latter are to be submitted for approval by the Council in the context of a work programme. UNMOVIC will be ready to submit a draft work programme this month as required.



UNSCOM and the Amorim Panel did valuable work to identify the disarmament issues, which were still open at the end of 1998. UNMOVIC has used this material as starting points but analysed the data behind it and data and documents post 1998 up to the present time to compile its own list of "unresolved disarmament issues" or, rather, clustered issues. It is the answers to these issues which we seek through our inspection activities.



It is from the list of these clustered issues that UNMOVIC will identify the "key remaining disarmament tasks". As noted in the report before you, this list of clustered issues is ready.



UNMOVIC is only required to submit the work programme with the "key remaining disarmament tasks" to the Council. As I understand that several Council members are interested in the working document with the complete clusters of disarmament issues, we have declassified it and are ready to make it available to members of the Council on request. In this working document, which may still be adjusted in the light of new information, members will get a more up-to-date review of the outstanding issues than in the documents of 1999, which members usually refer to. Each cluster in the working document ends with a number of points indicating what Iraq could do to solve the issue. Hence, Iraq's cooperation could be measured against the successful resolution of issues.



I should note that the working document contains much information and discussion about the issues which existed at the end of 1998 - including information which has come to light after 1998. It contains much less information and discussion about the period after 1998, primarily because of paucity of information. Nevertheless, intelligence agencies have expressed the view that proscribed programmes have continued or restarted in this period. It is further contended that proscribed programmes and items are located in underground facilities, as I mentioned, and that proscribed items are being moved around Iraq. The working document contains some suggestions on how these concerns may be tackled.



Mr. President,



Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.



How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.

If Hans Blix was right, then Saddam would have had no reason to keep thwarting the UN Inspectors. He would have invited them in and opened everything up and ended it right then. Why didn't he? Hmmm?

According to the Times story, Saddam Hussein wanted the world to believe he possessed WMD in order to create fear and thwart any war plans by the US. The revelation that Saddam's generals believed they would use WMD against American, British and other invading forces explains why the US military found protective gear had been issued to Iraqi soldiers. The top commanders wanted their troops protected from the WMD they intended to use.

"The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense, " stated the New York Times on March 12.

parados wrote:

2. Saddam's long pattern of hiding evidence and obstructing inspectors doesn't lead to one choice. Again it leads to many. "Trust but verify" comes to mind. (Your arguments from 1997 were not current with the circumstances in 2003. One could as easily list Bush's drinking and driving charges from the 60's as evidence he still does it but it doesn't make it true. )

I don't want to do Iraq in the 237th thread myself, but this is among the dumbest arguments I've seen to date. Not only were arguments from 1997 valid in 2003, the long suspension in verification made it utterly impossible for us to know much of anything... and yes, a decade in defiance of what, 17 straight resolutions most certainly constitute probable cause. If a parolee disappears for a few years, contrary to his conditions of parole, after 17 parole violations; one would be foolish to assume he was walking the straight and narrow or take his word for anything. Not quite the same thing as 4 decade old dui.

All
of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them ?- several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

parados wrote:

A necessity that didn't require an invasion as evidenced by the present negotiation with North Korea.

Yes, North Korea is a representative test case. Just because we may, perhaps, finally have succeeded in buying them off in this particular case, doesn't mean that allowing awful dictators to have doomsday weapons couldn't realistically result in terrible, lethal consequences.

I don't mean to be mean, but this question reveals your lack of comprehension of the issue. Once North Korea announced actual possession of nukes, we had no further option to invade. Should we invade a nuclear power, they have the option of using the weapons. It was precisely to prevent Saddam Hussein from achieving this near invulnerability that we invaded Iraq.

All of you that are saying that there were no WMD in Iraq,let me ask something.

We know now that there were no WMD,but given Saddam's history of using WMD in the past,and given his defiance of 14 previous resolutions,what would have happened had you been wrong?

Did you really want to take that chance?