Author Topic: WMD's found in Iraq (Read 20272 times)

Kieran · « **Reply #120 on:** January 11, 2004, 07:41:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Basically EVERYONE who call this "find" justification for the war is calling it an imminent threat. The only LEGAL justification for this war is an attack on the USA or the IMMINENT threat of one. The US administration knew this and that's why they played that card hopeing Hussein would prove them right. They were wrong.

Wrong. What this "find" indicates is Iraq lied about their disposal of chemical weapons. That lie might indicate (to a logical person, anyway) they lied about more than that. Mix that with the other things I mentioned and you have mounting evidence that perhaps Bush wasn't all wet WRT Iraq's intentions to mount a program to develop WMD, or his assertion they already had them. That's the part you can't stand, I'm sure; that maybe, just maybe Bush was right.

In short, the jury is still out. I haven't made up my mind yet, though it is very clear you have. Now if you want to parse what has been stated here to fit your political agenda that's cool, but I reserve the right to call you a liar if you do (as I am one of the people you are accusing of saying something I have taken great pains NOT to say).

Bush was foolish to use the words "imminent threat", no contest. If it was the only reason given for war you'd be right- but it wasn't, and you aren't.

As for the UN and the UNSC, they can step off a cliff for all I care. Hell, no one would even notice they were missing.

midnight Target · « **Reply #121 on:** January 11, 2004, 07:41:40 PM »

I don't believe mustard gas was ever on the list of WMD claimed by Powell in the UN speech. Here it is for your reading pleasure.

http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/Outlines/MidE/PowellUNspeech5Feb03htm.html

Kieran · « **Reply #122 on:** January 11, 2004, 07:43:29 PM »

So chemical or biological agents (generically) aren't covered? I'd find that hard to believe. And anyway, isn't mustard gas specifically banned by the Geneva Convention?

Yeager · « **Reply #123 on:** January 11, 2004, 07:49:42 PM »

45 minutes away! That's what they said. What could be more imminent?
====
I seem to recall hearing something along those lines, back in the day, but I cant recall who said it or when. Any info?

Kieran · « **Reply #124 on:** January 11, 2004, 07:51:14 PM »

My, my, my, twist to the end. The UN is a joke, but that isn't the point of this discussion, now is it?

BTW, your failure to admit you lied is noted.

midnight Target · « **Reply #125 on:** January 11, 2004, 07:51:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
So chemical or biological agents (generically) aren't covered? I'd find that hard to believe. And anyway, isn't mustard gas specifically banned by the Geneva Convention?

That's not what I said.

Here are notes on Powells speech re. chemical weapons

Quote

CHEMICAL
defector confirms image of site at mussayib, then site bulldozed & graded in later photo.
Intercepted communication tape: Col. instructs Captain to remove expression "nerve agents" from wireless instructions.
100-500 tons of chemical agent, could fill thousands of rockets.
When will we see rest of submerged iceberg?
Experiments on humans, 1600 death row prisoners moved, tied to beds and autopsies performed -- human source.

Kieran · « **Reply #126 on:** January 11, 2004, 07:54:20 PM »

I stand corrected.

My point regarding mustard gas and the Geneva Convention stands, however. It was something they should not have had.

Kieran · « **Reply #127 on:** January 11, 2004, 08:02:23 PM »

Believe me, no troll. Discuss honestly if you can. Admit you are wrong when you are proven wrong. Simple.

Fishu · « **Reply #128 on:** January 11, 2004, 08:03:23 PM »

Geez.. looks like those pro-war people are now going ranting about 'no-wmd' people.
I could have told them long before the war (like I have...) there can very well be findings of old WMD stuff, but what does that show.... not like someones going to use hazardous weapons, which are more probably danger to the user.
Theres no evidence of WMD developtment/manufacturing from between the gulf wars yet... which I thought was the main reason why the 'coalition' attacked Iraq, not the disposed WMD's.

Kieran,

Just funny that US sort of supported Iraqi WMD.

Not like it's their fault they have WMD if one of the greatest nations supports them and uses even vetos to save their arse.
(not to mention where from some of the WMD was bought from

)

Kieran · « **Reply #129 on:** January 11, 2004, 08:09:02 PM »

I'll give you that. It shouldn't have happened. But where do you start to clean up a mess? And more, it illustrates how the UN can be manipulated.

America is guilty of supporting bad folks, no doubt. Mea culpa. Are we going to pretend the US is alone in this behavior? Really? Are we going to pretend the UN actually stops this kind of behavior, or even limits it? Really?

Time to come to that big realization everyone is looking out for #1. You Scandinavians could benefit from a little soul-searching as well. Your associations are less than... pristine.

SirLoin · « **Reply #130 on:** January 11, 2004, 08:13:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu

Just funny that US sort of supported Iraqi WMD.

Which begs the question..Why did USA sell chemical weapons to Iraq in the first place?

One can only assume it was so they could use it and kill people with it.

Which begs another question...What is the bigger crime?..The dealer selling WMD or the buyer?

Talk about your fuggn indian giver.

yowser · « **Reply #131 on:** January 11, 2004, 08:21:45 PM »

Hard work defending Bush these days eh Kieren?

Can somebody else not take over for a little while and give the poor guy a break?

yowser

Kieran · « **Reply #132 on:** January 11, 2004, 08:22:35 PM »

Do you think I want a lecture on the proud history you folks enjoyed as collaborators?

Paper

Oh! Look!

Quote

The Scandinavian states act to minimize the Soviet security threat through a mix of military preparedness and nonprovocative, accommodationist policies.

Shall I parse this in the manner you have parsed the conversation here today?

Kieran · « **Reply #133 on:** January 11, 2004, 08:25:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by yowser
Hard work defending Bush these days eh Kieren?

Can somebody else not spell you for a little while?

yowser

Hardly. I'd vote against Bush if the inept party of the left could generate a viable candidate that won't be 100% worse. They can't, so what choice do I have?

I had time to kill today, and Gscholz was up to the rhetorical blather and outright lies. Both events merged in a beautiful synergy of purpose.

Kieran · « **Reply #134 on:** January 11, 2004, 08:30:12 PM »

"Complete".

And you are a complete liar.

Hey, if you can parse people being interested in recent chemical weapons finds into people who believe them to be an imminent threat, I can parse your Quisling affair into full-blown nazism. See how it works?