|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 24 days
|
1441
#2028216 - 10/21/03 09:37 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
How exactly did Iraq violate the resolution?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: 1441 [Re: GazzBut]
#2028356 - 10/21/03 10:43 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Iraq was told to catalogue their weapons (chemicals etc.) but when it came time for the inspectors to check on those chemicals that were cataloged they were missing. I'm not going to pretend like i know where they went but that alone is in defiance of 1441, full disclosure. knowing what we know now (and i've already said i was wrong) the US should of waited Saddam out and call his bluff.
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: 1441 [Re: GazzBut]
#2028363 - 10/21/03 10:46 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
A cease-fire agreement is much like being on parole. If you violate the terms then action will be taken against you.
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
|
there were NUMEROUS violations and 1441 was the last straw. I wonder where the chemicals they said they had went?
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
|
Iraq was also in possession of Al-something missiles that exceeded the legal range of missiles they wer allowed to have. Interesting how the war was because of BANNED weapons(not just WMD's) and noone has really focused on the fact that they did have BANNED WEAPONS.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
|
I don't know where they went, but I have one friend with blister agent burns on his feet, and one who is losing hair and fingernails. There is some bad stuff over there.
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: 1441 [Re: GazzBut]
#2028411 - 10/21/03 11:06 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
GAZZ, what did you think 1441 said?
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 28 days
|
|
Quote:
lysergic said: Iraq was also in possession of Al-something missiles that exceeded the legal range of missiles they wer allowed to have. Interesting how the war was because of BANNED weapons(not just WMD's) and noone has really focused on the fact that they did have BANNED WEAPONS.
I am familiar with the missles you are referring to and the weapons inspectors have already stated that those missles you speak of were considered a non-issue...since the range was only exceeded by a few miles...and that there were many variables that could account for that.
You'll need to do better...
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2028442 - 10/21/03 11:19 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
18 Apr 1991 Iraq provides initial declaration required under resolution 687 (1991), declares some chemical weapons and materials and 53 Al-Hussein and Scud type long-range ballistic missiles. Iraq declares it has no biological weapons programme.
In 1991 Iraq, as part of resolution 687, decleard that she did have weapons that violate the treaty, and has "some" chemical weapons. No proof is ever made of them destroying these weapons.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
|
UNSCOM: CHRONOLOGY OF MAIN EVENTS
3 Apr 1991 Security Council resolution 687 (1991), Section C, decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometres, and related production facilities and equipment. It also provides for establishment of a system of ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq?s compliance with the ban on these weapons and missiles. Requires Iraq to make a declaration, within 15 days, of the location, amounts and types of all such items. 6 Apr 1991 Iraq accepts resolution 687 (1991) (S/22456).
18 Apr 1991 Iraq provides initial declaration required under resolution 687 (1991), declares some chemical weapons and materials and 53 Al-Hussein and Scud type long-range ballistic missiles. Iraq declares it has no biological weapons programme.
14 May 1991 Entry into force of the exchange of letters between the Secretary-General and the Foreign Minister of Iraq setting out the rights, privileges and immunities of the Special Commission and its personnel in Iraq.
16 May 1991 Iraq submits revised declarations covering additional chemical weapons and a refinement of the missile declaration.
9 Jun 1991 UNSCOM commences its first chemical weapons inspection.
23-28 Jun 1991 UNSCOM/IAEA inspectors try to intercept Iraqi vehicles carrying nuclear related equipment (Calutrons). Iraqi personnel fire warning shots in the air to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles. The equipment is later seized and destroyed under international supervision.
---
We should have attacked them at that time.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
|
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/resolution715.htm
I won't post that entire thing here, but it's a list of a few mroe times that Iraq has violated resolutions. I did't even realiez all of the things that they had done. AFter reading this, you can't POSSIBLY be against hte war, unless you are a [edited in consideration for Rono]
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 28 days
|
|
You do realize where they got those from don't you? Chemical weapons have a shelf life...anything that they had in 1991 has been long since rendered useless...How do you prove that you have destroyed something that is already worthless? EDIT: That list you provided does not support your argument at all...Are you saying that because Iraq admitted to having weapons and destroying them 10 YEARS AGO, that the U.S. was justified for attacking them recently???
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
Edited by Rono (10/21/03 11:30 AM)
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2028475 - 10/21/03 11:27 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Stabilizers can be added to chemical weapons giving them a shelf-life of decades. US stores of XV are a good example. We have to incinerate these, which we've been doing for many years now.
Anthrax spores have an indefinite shelf-life. They can survive for decades, possibly over a century, just buried uncontained in the dirt. In a sealed container there is no known lifespan.
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 28 days
|
|
I think it's already been well established already that Iraq does not possess any WMD's by the simple fact that not ONE DROP of chemical weapon has been found...I repeat..NOT ONE DROP...or are you still clinging to the hope that Bush and Co. told the truth about their reasons for attacking Iraq?
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
|
Quote:
The liquid form of anthrax weapon can be stored at 0?C for approximately one year. The dry form has a much longer shelf life; no decay was observed even after five years in storage. Spores can remain viable for many years, despite significant changes in light and temperature.
http://www.bioterrorism.uab.edu/EIPBA/Anthrax/history.html
UNSCOM catalogued 8500 liters of weaponized anthrax spores.
Quote:
Unscom was forced to quit Iraq in December 1998, with the team believing it had destroyed most of the 8,500 litres of concentrated anthrax and 19,000 litres of undiluted botulinum toxin that Saddam admitted he had after years denying a biological weapons programme. Anthrax production began in June 1990, on the eve of the invasion of Kuwait.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,578030,00.html
It didn't take them much time to produce that 8500 liters, and a single liter could be easily replicated.
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 28 days
|
|
not one drop....
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2028521 - 10/21/03 11:41 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Iraq's chemical and biological weapons were physically catalogued by UN inspectors, and some of them were verified to have been destroyed.
Where did the rest go? Quote:
I think it's already been well established already that Iraq does not possess any WMD's by the simple fact that not ONE DROP of chemical weapon has been found...
Finding a 1000 liter tank hidden in an an area the size of California may take a while. It's taken this long to inspect something like 10% of their weapon dumps. Clandestine labs, deliberately hidden from UN inspectors, have been found. That right there is a violation and casus belli.
BTW, anthrax would be a much better terror weapon than nerve agent, imho. Dump a liter in the air ducts at Grand Central Station and you'll have an impressive body count, plus total chaos.
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2028529 - 10/21/03 11:44 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Where did they go, then?
Iraq could have secretly destroyed the remainder, after driving out the inspectors. This is so highly unlikely as to be absurd.
The only other options are that they are hidden within Iraq, or have been shipped out of the country. They cannot simply cease to exist.
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 28 days
|
|
They didn't go anywhere because they never existed.
Edame just posted an excellent article from the New Yorker...here is the link... NO WMD'S
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2028542 - 10/21/03 11:49 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So the UN was lying when they found all that anthrax back in the 90's?
|
|