Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Over in Great Britain, Tony Blair is taking a lot of heat because those weapons were the primary reason for our unpopular invasion. Over here in "love it or leave it" America, you don't hear a lot about it. Colin Powell cites plagiarized intelligence reports (which Britain later admitted) and forged documents (that no one claims to know the origin of) and yet no seems to care.

    So we're going after Saddam for the weapons but we couldn't find them. Eh, maybe we were going after him for his role in 9/11.

    • The justification to invade Iraq was that Iraq didn't live up to their commitment to 'fully, proactively and immediately' disarm as required by Resolution 1441. Everyone who signed on to Resolution 1441, the entire UN Security council, was clear on the fact that Iraq did possess such weapons.

      It was clear that they were playing games with the UN Inspectors. It's also clear from what we are finding that they had an active program to develop or research WMDs.

      The fact that they may have been busy destroying

      • It was clear that they were playing games with the UN Inspectors.

        You don't invade a country because they're playing parliamentary games.

        Certainly, if Iraq had no WMD, they could have fully cooperated with the UN Inspectors and made a mockery of the US and probably gotten the sanctions lifted in no time.

        I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment). Just think about the diplomatic fire and bile the US govt would spew at the suggestion of having foreign weapons inspectors violate their sovereignty, regardless of what they had to hide.

        The fact that they may have been busy destroying (or hiding in Syria) their weapons of mass destruction

        A) Does it really matter how they destroyed them as long as they got destroyed? If the Iraqis wanted to save some face by wiping out the weapons they claimed they didn't have, FINE BY ME! Same result either way, weapons destroyed. You don't invade a country because they didn't fill out the proper paperwork.

        B) HOoooboy, you've been reading too many White House Press Releases. "The fact that they may have been..." You can justify anything you want using that prefix. "The fact that George Bush may have been a card carrying NAMBLA member..." "The fact that you may have been a baby seal clubber..." "The fact that I may have been the King of Norway..." You don't invade a country based on what they MIGHT be doing. This is called paranoia.

        It's also clear from what we are finding that they had an active program to develop or research WMDs.

        Had. HAD.Ya know, the whole point of my journal entry was Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, a guy that should be pretty up on what we're finding in Iraq, is stating feeble excuses for why they're not finding weapons in Iraq. Here's another [guardian.co.uk] Why? Perhaps because they destroyed them like the UN told them to!

        You're right, clearly that's too far fetched. They obviously moved them all to [insert neighboring country here] just prior to being invaded so they can use them... after their country has been taken over and their power base destroyed and half the leadership is dead or captured? Wait, I know there's a flaw in this logic somewhere...

          • I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment).

          The US didn't lose a war where one of the conditions of Armistice was full accounting and destruction of their Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iraq signed on to conditions of inspections in 1992, thus no sovereignty was being violated. We were just enforcing the terms of that Armistice.

          No matter how hard you try to spin

          • I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment).

            The US didn't lose a war where one of the conditions of Armistice was full accounting and destruction of their Weapons of Mass Destruction.

            You miss the point. You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt. Consider the hypothectical situation of UN weapon inspectors in the US. Yo

              • You miss the point. You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt.

              When Resolution 1441 required 'full, immediate and proactive disarmament' and a full accounting for weapons that previous UN inspectors had identified and they play games, that is not an admission of guilt, that is, in itself, a violation.

              I think you miss the point our insisting on the language of Resolution 1441 requiring "full, immediate and proactive disarmament". You see, inspections have never worked

            • You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt.

              I don't. I think it is very fishy, but not necessarily a sign of guilt.

              Consider the hypothectical situation of UN weapon inspectors in the US. You know the US would scream bloody murder if they came into our country, regardless of the reason.

              So? Then we would be wrong too. Look, Iraq was stated as guilty by the UN Security Council, and that guilty verdict was reaffirmed more than a dozen times in a dozen years; Iraq itself
              • You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt.

                I don't. I think it is very fishy, but not necessarily a sign of guilt.

                To clarify ... yes, it IS absolute guilt under Resolution 1441, Resolution 687, etc. Iraq was guilty, without any doubt, of breaching those resolutions, which Resolution 1441 said would result in serious consequences, and Resolution 687 said would require the UN Security Council to take further steps (which it refused to do).

                Iraq was absolutely guilty of
            • See, here's the problem with that: That Armistice was signed with the UN, not the US and Britian. We can't charge in under the pretext of enforcing an argreement signed with a different political body.

              That is an eminently fair point to make, but it misses something, IMO. Resolution 687 was not merely a warning to Iraq to comply or else; it was a promise to the United States that the UN Security Concil would handle the situation. It was a cease-fire between Iraq, Kuwait, and the other nations involved.

              T
        • Does it really matter how they destroyed them as long as they got destroyed?

          Yes, it does. There is a reason that Resolution 687 says that the destruction of biological and chemical weapons must be conducted under UN supervision: verification. We cannot trust their word.

          Same result either way, weapons destroyed.

          Assuming they actually are destroyed ... something we logically cannot do, without verification.

          Hans Blix was clear on the point that it is, absolutely, Iraq's obligation to account for all t