Home | Community | Message Board


Sporeworks
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate, Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Amazon Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
WMD: The Final Judgement
    #3225846 - 10/07/04 12:13 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

The final judgement:

* Iraqi Survey Group: There were no WMD

* Saddam less of a threat in 2003 than in 1998

* Bush and Blair's case for war is demolished

07 October 2004


Now we finally know what we had long suspected. When US and British forces invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons; he had no biological weapons; he had no nuclear weapons. In fact, he had no banned weapons at all. That is the considered judgement of the Iraq Survey Group, set up by President Bush to prove his case for removing the Iraqi dictator, and released in Washington last night.

The ISG report proves precisely the opposite. The much-maligned international regime of weapons containment had functioned exactly as it was supposed to. After his failed effort to annex Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was progressively disarmed.

Establishing this truth has required half a dozen top-level inquiries on either side of the Atlantic, the spending of millions of dollars and pounds, the dispatch of hundreds of UN weapons inspectors over the years, and - since the removal of Saddam Hussein - the work of 1,200 inspectors who scoured the country under the auspices of the US-directed Iraq Survey Group.

Oh yes, and it took a war, a war in which thousands of Iraqis, more than 1,000 Americans and more than 100 British and soldiers of other nationalities have died. Iraq is a devastated country that risks sliding into anarchy. And what has it all been for?

After the war officially ended, President Bush and his chief ally, Tony Blair, kept telling us to wait patiently for the ISG to report. In that time, they have changed their story many times over, editing the words, trimming the sense for the possibility that the threat might not have been as great as they had thought.

Perhaps there were no weapons, Mr Bush said, but he would have gone to war anyway. Even if there were no actual stockpiles, Mr Blair and his ministers said, there were "weapons programmes". Last week, the programmes themselves evaporated. Mr Blair told us (almost) straight the intelligence was wrong. "I can apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong," he said, without actually doing so, "but I can't sincerely, at least, apologise for removing Saddam."

Mr Bush's case for war is also unravelling. His Defence Secretary let slip this week that there was no "hard evidence" for a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida. The second US viceroy of Iraq, Paul Bremer, said US troop numbers had been grossly inadequate for the job they had to do. Troop numbers had been an ideological decision.

Now that the ISG has reported, it is clear beyond doubt that Iraq's deadly weapons capacity boiled down to a glint, if that, in Saddam Hussein's eye. In one of the more shameless examples of pre-emptive "spinning", even from this Government so addicted to "spin", the Foreign Secretary told us yesterday that, "the report highlights the nature of the threat from Saddam in terms of his intentions and capabilities in even starker terms than we have seen before". Try parsing that. Try translating it into plain English.

The ISG report tells us in no uncertain terms that the invasion of Iraq was grounded in little more substantial than figments of a fevered, post-11 September, imagination. The international "consensus" that Saddam Hussein constituted a global threat was incorrect. So much for UN Resolution 1441 that gave the US and Britain their spurious excuse for war.

There was a failure of intelligence, on either side of the Atlantic, of historic proportions, the reasons for which need to be identified as a matter of urgency. More gravely, though, there was a historic failure of judgement on the part of a small group of national leaders. Trust us, they told us. They were credulous, they failed to consult broadly enough, they failed to exercise due responsibility - and they were wrong.

Spanish voters have already given their verdict on the judgement of their former prime minister. Australians have their chance this weekend. Americans should use their vote in less than four weeks' time to express their disgust with a President who rushed their country into so unnecessary and damaging a war. We British will probably have to wait at least until next year.

In the meantime, the very least that Mr Blair should offer is a full apology. An apology for asking us to trust him so unconditionally. An apology for the lives of the British servicemen and the Iraqis that have been so needlessly lost. An apology for his judgement that turned out to be so flawed on a matter so crucial as peace and war. The final verdict will then rest, as it should, with the voters.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=569588


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
It's unavoidable.... [Re: Xlea321]
    #3226408 - 10/07/04 05:22 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Read it and weep


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblepsilomonkey
Twisted brainwrong of a oneoff man mental

Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 812
Loc: Airstrip One
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Xlea321]
    #3226416 - 10/07/04 05:46 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Well there goes the US/UK official justification, but don't forget Poland. At least their reasons still stand..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3043330.stm (old)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: psilomonkey]
    #3226423 - 10/07/04 05:54 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Fucking hell!!! An honest statement by a politician....WOW!!!!
Praise be!
:satansmoking:

Funny how after all the reasoning, they still get their soldiers called a 'peace keeping force' though!
:dumblol:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: CJay]
    #3226456 - 10/07/04 06:51 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Actually - I see the logic -

the troops of the 'coalition of the willing' have to try to 'keep the peace' while the invaders steal all the country's resources and install a puppet government.

what a fucking joke


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 5 years, 29 days
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: psilomonkey]
    #3226486 - 10/07/04 07:34 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

:rotfl: why haven't i seen that before? thanks for postin it :thumbup:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Xlea321]
    #3226725 - 10/07/04 09:46 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

yup, no wmd.

now where are those fools like pinksharkmark that spent months defending Bush Inc. on this? Let's hear some damage control and backpeddling and denial.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Vvellum]
    #3226832 - 10/07/04 10:19 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Old news. When you evaluate a decision in hindsight you don't do it on what you know now, but what you knew then. Just because it turns out weapons were not in Iraq does not mean the President didn't have good reason to believe they did at the time. When George Tenet, the director of the CIA tells him the cases against Iraq is a "slam dunk" that should be enough justification.

It is foolish to argue against what we did 2 years ago with information that we only learned recently. It just does not add up nor make a compelling argument.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3226849 - 10/07/04 10:27 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Using your "logic", ANY action could be justified at ANY time.

Don't forget: Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because of what the USA "might" have done. No use "second-guessing" after-the-fact...


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineWorf
Lt. Commander

Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 15,663
Loc: Final Frontier
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3226861 - 10/07/04 10:31 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

You shouldn't wage a war on a country because you "have reason to believe"; rather you "should be fucking sure"

Bush took a gamble and he lost. It's not any different than betting on a horse that "you have reason to believe" is going to win and when it doesn't you just blame it on hindsight.

Not only that but Bush won't even admit he made the mistake.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineekomstop
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Swami]
    #3226863 - 10/07/04 10:33 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Don't forget: Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because of what the USA "might" have done. No use "second-guessing" after-the-fact...





heh..little off topic but don't forget the U.S. knew specifics before pearl harbor and willingly allowed it happen in order to sucker Hitler into finally declairing war. This war is a farce just as many others were.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLearyfanS
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 32,002
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Xlea321]
    #3226878 - 10/07/04 10:37 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Saddam less of a threat in 2003 than in 1998





No surprise there. Powell and Rice said themselves that Iraq wasn't a threat even to their neighbors in 2001.







--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: The Mamas and The Papas - Strange Young Girls



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: CJay]
    #3227195 - 10/07/04 11:40 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

the troops of the 'coalition of the willing' have to try to 'keep the peace' while the invaders steal all the country's resources and install a puppet government.

what's been stolen yet?

the only stealing i heard of after the fall of the ba'ath regime was the looting shortly following the invasion. oil has been stolen from iraq? really? by whom? when? where did it go?

the elimination of existing stocks of WMD's was never the primary reason to go to war with iraq. would anyone read a history of the ba'ath regime's actions throughout the 90's, one would see that diplomacy was not working and the time was drawing near to use force. john kerry acknowledged this. bill clinton acknowledged this. george w. bush acknowledged this.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3227248 - 10/07/04 11:51 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
the troops of the 'coalition of the willing' have to try to 'keep the peace' while the invaders steal all the country's resources and install a puppet government.

what's been stolen yet?

the only stealing i heard of after the fall of the ba'ath regime was the looting shortly following the invasion. oil has been stolen from iraq? really? by whom? when? where did it go?

the elimination of existing stocks of WMD's was never the primary reason to go to war with iraq. would anyone read a history of the ba'ath regime's actions throughout the 90's, one would see that diplomacy was not working and the time was drawing near to use force. john kerry acknowledged this. bill clinton acknowledged this. george w. bush acknowledged this.




One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clark, press briefing, March 22, 2003

If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since [UN Resolution] 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us.
- Colin Powell, interview with Radio France International, Feb. 28, 2003

-----------------

The ironic thing is, the reports coming out now prove that in fact the inspections and sanctions WERE working. Cowboy Bush just couldn't leave it at that though, damnit he had to invade something or he was just gonna burst! :rolleyes:

As for stolen.. no, none of the oil has been "stolen" yet, mostly because the pipelines and plants keep getting blown up, providing more juicy contract fodder for halliburton. Tasty!


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 5 years, 29 days
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3227319 - 10/07/04 12:02 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

the elimination of existing stocks of WMD's was never the primary reason to go to war with iraq.




what are you talking about? that was the ultimatum bush gave to saddam before he started the countdown to the invasion.

and how is an american company, halliburton's, assumed control over oil resources not theft?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: unbeliever]
    #3227320 - 10/07/04 12:02 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

iraq was not cooperating with weapons inspectors. they had no genuine interest in doing so. their only interest was in getting sanctions lifted and resuming work on their WMD programs. there was absolutely no honest cooperation and no renouncement of WMD aspirations. if you can't see that from iraq's history heel-dragging and deception throughout the 90's... i don't know what. add to that the fact that iraq was controlled by one man (no group consensus required before acting out in violence), the ba'ath regimes continuing support for terrorism, and history of belligerence towards its neighbors and it's own people, and i think it's pretty damn clear that something had to be done.

here is a question i would like you to seriously consider:

left to his own devices, what would hussein have done as far as WMD's were concerned?


Edited by mushmaster (10/07/04 12:54 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 5 years, 29 days
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3227339 - 10/07/04 12:05 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

iraq was not cooperating with weapons inspectors.




bullshit, hans blix said he gave them a 'B' for their cooperation (on a scale of A-F).


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3227357 - 10/07/04 12:07 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
here is a question i would like you to seriously consider:

left to his own devices, what would hussein have done as far as WMD's were concerned?




Irrelevant. He wasn't being left to his own devices. Again, as the reports coming out now have proven, the inspections and sanctions were working.Period. As for "not-cooperating" with the inspectors, they had almost no reason to. If they resisted, they got bombed. If they claimed they were being spied on above and beyond the scope of the inspections, they were bombed. Saddam was a right evil bastard but I'm not sure I can find fault with his attitude towards the western world's hubris.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Tao]
    #3227377 - 10/07/04 12:11 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

bullshit, hans blix said he gave them a 'B' for their cooperation (on a scale of A-F).

during what period of time?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLearyfanS
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 32,002
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3227382 - 10/07/04 12:13 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Stop being brainwashed god damn it.

Bush is an EVIL mother fucker who took us to war for bullshit reasons. Stop trying to find bullshit reasons to justify this war.






--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: The Mamas and The Papas - Strange Young Girls



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: unbeliever]
    #3227387 - 10/07/04 12:13 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

He wasn't being left to his own devices

i know that. how do you think saddam hussein should have been dealt with?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Learyfan]
    #3227393 - 10/07/04 12:15 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

how do you (a presumably non-evil, non-brainwashed person) think hussein should have been dealt with?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: unbeliever]
    #3227412 - 10/07/04 12:19 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

At least we can get this silly business of WMD behind us.

I am still wondering where the WMD came from in the disrupted terrorist attack in Jordan.

Here is my prediction: We still don't know the full story.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3227419 - 10/07/04 12:20 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
He wasn't being left to his own devices

i know that. how do you think saddam hussein should have been dealt with?




Same way as before. Containment was working. I feel the war in Iraq is a bit like taking a group of commandos into prison to execute some guy with a life sentence and no chance of parole. Killing a bunch of other prisoners, guards in the process and losing a bunch of our commandos as well. It makes no sense.

Personally I would also apply stricter sanctions and inspections on Iraq's neighbors. I would also put a lot of money into alternate fuel research so we can have a more legitimate claim of impartiality towards how we deal with the middle east in general.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLearyfanS
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 32,002
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3227427 - 10/07/04 12:22 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

I would have let the UN do their job. And don't tell me that they weren't allowed to. That's bullshit. As TTC said, Blix gave them a "B", which means they were cooperating.

Stop looking for bullshit reasons to defend our evil oppressors.




--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: The Mamas and The Papas - Strange Young Girls



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3227432 - 10/07/04 12:22 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Sorry but I possess foresight in far greater quantities then Cheny.

But that aside, it has already been stolen. Iraq is an occupied territory, its resources and its soil are under the control of a puppet government installed by the invaders. The invaders rule the country with their military, and the Iraqi's have no control of their country and their resources. Effectively the place is owned by the invaders, this is the fruit of their conquest. To have taken ownership of someother's home and everything in it by force, in other words: taking it from them,is stealing.

Now you will probably say: 'they didn't own it, Saddam did'. Well they had more of a share in it then now, and even if they didn't - well what fucking good has stealing it from Saddam done for the people anyway if only to enforce a dictatorship from afar?

Yeh the Iraqi's really have it good.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: unbeliever]
    #3227469 - 10/07/04 12:30 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Same way as before. Containment was working.

then why did the UN have to issue resolution after resolution condemning iraq's noncompliance? why were inspections being intermittently obstructed whenever hussein felt he could get away with it? how long would the people of iraq have to suffer under this policy of "containment"?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Learyfan]
    #3227481 - 10/07/04 12:34 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

I would have let the UN do their job.

so basically... the status quo. see my previous response.

As TTC said, Blix gave them a "B", which means they were cooperating.

when? iraq's compliance was intermittent. there were good times and there were bad times.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3227485 - 10/07/04 12:35 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
Same way as before. Containment was working.

then why did the UN have to issue resolution after resolution condemning iraq's noncompliance? why were inspections being intermittently obstructed whenever hussein felt he could get away with it? how long would the people of iraq have to suffer under this policy of "containment"?




Well for one, my own "containment" strategy (assuming I was president or whatever) would include a pointed effort at civil relief for the citizens of Iraq or whatever country it was applied to.

As for your other points, no I don't entirely blame Saddam for his attitude toward the western countries coming into his country, bombing, spying, laying down restrictions and sanctions that were WORKING but then continuing to bomb and ultimately invade and attempt to conquer. It's like being busted by a cop for something, they yell freeze and you do, you stop dead in your tracks. But the cop keeps yelling at you, harassing and then decide to just shoot you anyway.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: unbeliever]
    #3227556 - 10/07/04 12:49 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

July 1994 - Iraq destroys 480,000 liters of chemical agents in accordance to demands of the UNSCOM. (Oldaker 1996, 2)

14 June 1996 - UNSCOM inspectors begin dismantling a biological weapons facility in central Iraq, despite pleas from Baghdad to salvage some dual-use items. (Reuters, 14 June 1996)

End October 1997 - Iraq refuses entry to three Americans on a team of UN arms inspectors, and warns Iraqi anti-aircraft guns might fire upon US U-2 spy planes if surveillance flights continue. The UN sends a high-level diplomatic mission to resolve the budding crisis and Iraq delays the expulsion order against the American inspectors. (Washington Post, 3 November 1997, A1; Financial Times, 5 November 1997, 6)

12 November 1997 - The UN Security Council unanimously approves a travel ban for senior Iraqi officials and demands that Iraq stop interfering with UN weapons inspectors. Iraq insists that the weapons teams have fewer Americans. When Iraq refuses to comply with UN demands, the weapons inspectors leave the country. Fears mount that Iraq could revive chemical and biological weapons programs without the oversight of the international community. Russia and France push for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, while Washington does not rule out a resort to the use of force. The United States increases its military presence in the Gulf. (Washington Post, 13 November 1997, A1; Washington Post, 18 November 1997, A22)

21 November 1997 - After intense diplomacy by Security Council members, particularly Russia, Iraq agrees to allow UN weapon inspectors back into the country. Russia agrees to push for concessions, such as the easing of the UN sanctions, in return. The Security Council rebuffs a Russian request to declare Iraq free of nuclear weapons and nearly free of prohibited missiles. (Washington Post, 21 November 1997, A1; New York Times, 22 November 1997, A1)

16 January 1998 - A weapons inspection team leaves Iraq after being barred for three days from conducting an inspection. The UN Security Council deplores Iraq's decision, which constitutes a clear violation of UN resolutions. (CRS, 6 March 1998, 3)

17 January 1998 - Saddam Hussein announces that Iraq will expel all weapons inspectors if sanctions against Iraq are not removed within six months. (CRS, 6 March 1998, 3)

3 February 1998 - US Secretary of Defense Cohen warns that if diplomacy fails, the United States will wage a "significant" military campaign against Iraq, "far more than what has been experienced in the past." (CRS, 6 March 1998, 5)

29 April 1998 - UNSCOM chief arms inspector Richard Butler reveals that experts discovered mustard gas in Iraqi artillery shells found at an ammunitions depot in 1996. The discovery raises new questions about similar shells that remain unaccounted for. (New York Times, 29 April 1998, A10)

24 June 1998 - Contradicting claims it never weaponized the substance, UNSCOM chief Butler says tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland show Iraq loaded deadly VX gas onto a missile. Iraq claims bias in the test of warhead pieces; similar weapons fragments are tested in Switzerland and France to see whether the finding can be confirmed. (USIS, 24 June 1998; New York Times, 25 June 1998, A10)

23 July 1998 - Iraqi authorities refuse to give UNSCOM documents that list weapons used by the Iraqi Air Force during the war with Iran. (Washington Post, 24 July 1998, A28)

5 August 1998 - Iraq restricts activities of IAEA and orders an end to all UNSCOM inspections, except for those specifically approved by the Iraqi government. It allows long distance monitoring with video camera, as well as air, water and soil sampling, to continue. President Hussein demands that UNSCOM be restructured, Butler replaced, and that UNSCOM move its headquarters out of the United States. (Financial Times, 6 August 1998, 1; USIS, 6 August 1998; New York Times, 15 September 1998, A3; Wall Street Journal, 2 October 1998, A16)

3 September 1998 - In a letter to Congress, President Clinton denounces Iraq's failure to allow weapons inspections, warns that, "If the Council fails to persuade the Iraqi regime to resume cooperation, all other options are on the table ." (USIS, 3 September 1998)

14 September 1998 - Iraq's National Assembly threatens to end all cooperation with inspectors unless the Security Council resumes regular reviews of the sanctions. (New York Times, 15 September 1998, A3)

31 October 1998 - Iraq stops all cooperation with weapons inspectors, banning arms inspectors from visiting sites that have already been inspected and were being monitored by UNSCOM. Baghdad says sensors and monitors placed in sites can continued operating and also exempt the IAEA from its latest decision. (Financial Times, 2 November 1998, 1; Wall Street Journal, 2 November 1998, A4)

20 November 1998 - Shortly after UNSCOM inspectors resume their duties in Iraq, the Iraqi government refuses to provide 12 documents relating to weapons inventories. Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Riyadh al-Qaysi accuses the inspectors of "unjustifiably" prolonging their work, thereby extending the embargo. (Washington Post, 24 November 1998, A25; 18 November 1998, A33; Financial Times, 24 November 1998, 6)

19 December 1998 - After four consecutive nights of bombing, the US and Britain end the attack on Iraq. President Clinton declares Operation Desert Fox a success at degrading Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program and his conventional military capacity. In all, there were about 600 bombs and 415 cruise missiles fired at approximately 100 targets. (Washington Post, 20 December 1998, A1; New York Times, 20 December 1998, 24; Wall Street Journal, 21 December 1998, A3; 22 December 1998, A20)

15 December 1999 - Iraq refuses to allow IAEA inspectors to check Iraq's uranium stockpile as required under the 1968 nuclear nonproliferation treaty. (New York Times, 15 December 1999, A13; 16 December 1999, A5)

19 December 1999 - Iraq officially rejects resolution 1284 and demands unconditional lifting of sanctions. (Washington Post, 19 December 1999, A54)

**********************************************************************

UN resolutions:

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991

* "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."

* Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.

* Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991

* "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.

* "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


* Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.

* Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.

* Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

* Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.

* Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.

* Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994

* "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.

* Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.

* Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996

* Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996

* "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997

* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.


UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.


UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

* "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

* Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

* Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

* Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).

* Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.

* Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.


* Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

***************************************************************************


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3227579 - 10/07/04 12:53 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

And yet. No WMD. No WMD programs. No credible progress towards WMD programs. You're right, I don't think it can GET much clearer.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Edited by unbeliever (10/07/04 12:54 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: unbeliever]
    #3227618 - 10/07/04 12:58 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

And yet. No WMD. No WMD programs. No credible progress towards WMD programs.

at the time of the invasion. the fact that there was no material WMD threat in iraq at the precise moment of the invasion says nothing. read the writing on the wall man.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 5 years, 29 days
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3227624 - 10/07/04 12:59 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

it was towards the very end of the inspections. sorry, i'd give a link but searching for "hans blix inspection b" isn't leading to fruitful searches and im too sick right now to spend time combing through the internet for something that i remember very clearly.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3227659 - 10/07/04 01:05 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
And yet. No WMD. No WMD programs. No credible progress towards WMD programs.

at the time of the invasion. the fact that there was no material WMD threat in iraq at the precise moment of the invasion says nothing. read the writing on the wall man.




If there was none of that at the time of the invasion.. then WHY THE FUCK DID WE INVADE?

Quote:


If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since [UN Resolution] 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us.
- Colin Powell, interview with Radio France International, Feb. 28, 2003




Quote:

The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.
- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002




Unique and urgent my ass. No WMD or WMD programs. No aggressive behavior to his neighbors in almost a decade at that point. Meanwhile we have North Korea with nukes and a delivery system, Iran with nukes and an active nuclear weapons proram. If any country presents an URGENT threat, it's those countries.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: unbeliever]
    #3227695 - 10/07/04 01:12 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

If there was none of that at the time of the invasion.. then WHY THE FUCK DID WE INVADE?

because it was only a temporary situation that would be reversed at saddam hussein's earliest convenience.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLearyfanS
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 32,002
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3227714 - 10/07/04 01:17 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

You can not be reasoned with. You're listing dates years ago in which Saddam didn't comply as if the invasion was revenge for those instances. The fact is, Saddam WAS complying with UN inspectors in the months leading up to the war. You know it. I know it. Quit bullshitting.

You can not find a logical reason for this war no matter how hard you try. Are you afraid that your whole world view will crumble if you accept the truth?






--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: The Mamas and The Papas - Strange Young Girls



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Learyfan]
    #3227748 - 10/07/04 01:24 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

You can not be reasoned with.

come on learyfan. we've both been posting here since before the invasion. after looking at different evidence, i've changed my position on this one several times, and i'm sure you've read the posts i've made about it. don't talk to me like i'm brainwashed and impossibly stubborn on this issue. i can be reasoned with. it is reason that caused me to arrive at my current position, and should i abandon it, it will be reason that prompts me to do so.

You're listing dates years ago in which Saddam didn't comply as if the invasion was revenge for those instances.

no i'm not. i don't see how you could misunderstand me so completely when i've very clearly explained the significance of hussein's noncompliance. it is important not because it justifies us in some kind of quest for vengeance, but because it should provide a reasonable person with a fairly good understanding of just how shallow hussein's sudden turnaround in the late winter of 2001 really was.

Are you afraid that your whole world view will crumble if you accept the truth?

pffft. i've changed my mind about the iraq war several times without my "world view" crashing down. i'm not afraid to do it again if i learn that that's what the facts of the situation actually call for.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Learyfan]
    #3227781 - 10/07/04 01:30 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

you should note that i am not a supporter of the bush administration, nor am i a republican, nor do i buy the opinions of the PNAC, nor do i view fox news.

i am a registered libertarian and i will be voting for michael badnarik in november. the libertarian party condemns the invasion of iraq, as does michael badnarik, as do a great many libertarians, including most of those on this board.

i've split with the "party line" on this one, and i think most of your diagnoses of me being "brainwashed" or worried about my "world view" coming down around me are pretty off the wall. i can think for myself thank you.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3227958 - 10/07/04 01:53 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
If there was none of that at the time of the invasion.. then WHY THE FUCK DID WE INVADE?

because it was only a temporary situation that would be reversed at saddam hussein's earliest convenience.




What you're failing to see is that Saddam had no "earliest convenience". Not if the inspections and sanctions remained in place.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLearyfanS
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 32,002
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3228041 - 10/07/04 02:07 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

I guess.

It just seems pretty clear cut to me that it doesn't matter what he had done in the past and that what mattered was that the inspections were going well at the most crucial time - right before the war. The war was unnessessary and Bush is now almost 4 times the killer Bin Laden is.




--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: The Mamas and The Papas - Strange Young Girls



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: unbeliever]
    #3228977 - 10/07/04 04:26 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

What you're failing to see is that Saddam had no "earliest convenience". Not if the inspections and sanctions remained in place.

how long would this go on?

how many times we he be allowed to expel inspectors or obstruct their efforts before force was used?

what would in your opinion, justify force against the ba'ath regime?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3231534 - 10/08/04 12:08 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

why were inspections being intermittently obstructed whenever hussein felt he could get away with it?

According to Scott Ritter who was actually on the inspections, Iraq obstructed 4% of weapons inspections. And that was always areas like palaces where the CIA infiltrated weapons inspections teams were looking to set up intelligence on his regime. Saddam wasn't worried about WMD, he was worried about intelligence on his regime.

When the americans realised in 1995-1998 that no weapons were going to be found they manufactured a reason to leave.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3231537 - 10/08/04 12:09 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

how many times we he be allowed to expel inspectors or obstruct their efforts before force was used?

Expel inspectors? When did he do this? And please don't say 1998.  :rolleyes:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3231541 - 10/08/04 12:10 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

you should note that i am not a supporter of the bush administration, nor am i a republican, nor do i buy the opinions of the PNAC, nor do i view fox news.

You keep saying this yet your views almost always correspond with Bush as opposed to, for example, Kerry.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,477
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 11 days, 19 hours
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3231723 - 10/08/04 01:42 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Ok... I didn't read the whole thread but I figured I'd chime in.

Mushmaster... you make some good points. Really.

Sadam acted to the world like he had WMD's. He dinked the UN around on numerous occasions.

It pissed me off.

One thing about Clinton, he did NOT want to send troops into war. This is why he attacked Ossama with missles and air strikes. This is why Clinton seemed to ignore Sadam. Well, that, and the USA didn't seem to mind peace over another Gulf War. Even Kosovo was fought from afar. Clinton didn't want a war. He wouldn't go back into Iraq to take Sadam out.

I would be lying if I said Sadam Hussein deserved to stay in power. Regime change was a great idea... on paper.

Sadam had lost his country ruling privelages long ago, as far as I am concerned.

There are a few problems though. Sadam had it coming, but the USA was attacked by al Quaeda. Bush went about war with Iraq all wrong.

Uh... Where in the world is Ossama bin Laden? Did we really need to change our target before Ossama was killed? I mean, Jeezus. Sadam sucked, but ask ANY New Yorker who they fear more, Sadam or Ossama. Kill the guy who killed us.

See why people wonder when Bush took 7 minutes to get off his ass on 9-11? He never seemed to care as much about 9-11 as he cared about Iraq. Look at his actions! He let Bin Laden ESCAPE. Yes, I hold Bush responsible.

WMD's... The concervative spin on what the world believed about Iraq and WMD's is a little different than I remember it.

Sure, most of Europe thought, like most Americans, Sadam had WMD's. But didn't our Bastard Enemies in France, Germany and Russia object because nobody had PROOF of these WMD's?

I destinctly remember watching Colin Powell in front of the UN making a case for war and showing his "Proof" of WMD's.

Blurry satelite photos of trucks and a vial of Anthrax (which Powell himself held) were all the Proof Powell presented.

People were asking for proof LONG before the war and they never got it.

Why couldn't Bush wait a year before moving to Iraq? We were FIGHTING BIN LADEN. The guy New Yorkers want to see put to justice. The guy who's still out there... somewhere.

Bush looked the other way.

Why didn't Bush just explain that Iraq needed regime change? Sadam needed to go. Now was the time. If he was going to go in. That case would have been easy to make. That case would have been easy to prove.

WMD's wasn't. It was an obvious risk before war began. Bush seemed to ignore this risk.

The world would have understood. America took Sadam out because he wasn't doing what he said he would after the first Gulf War.

Case closed.

Bush and Cheney fucked up.

They fucked up big.

Wrong war. Wrong place. Wrong time.

They can't say it... so they call Kerry a traitor when he does.

Get it?


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLearyfanS
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 32,002
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Rose]
    #3232242 - 10/08/04 08:46 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

In your opinion, why did Saddam need to be removed more than any of the other evil dictators?





--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: The Mamas and The Papas - Strange Young Girls



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Xlea321]
    #3232245 - 10/08/04 08:49 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

he physically expelled them from iraq at least once, and on other occasions made it impossible for them to inspect certain sites or obtain documents, making it useless for them to stay.

if, after reading the long list of news articles and UN sanctions that i've provided, you are suggesting that saddam hussein's regime was anything but uncooperative with weapons inspections, i don't know what else to tell ya. if that's not enough for you, i don't know what is.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Xlea321]
    #3232253 - 10/08/04 08:52 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

You keep saying this yet your views almost always correspond with Bush as opposed to, for example, Kerry.

off topic. i don't support george bush. i just despise john kerry. i'm not voting for either of them.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLearyfanS
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 32,002
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3232479 - 10/08/04 09:52 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

It's as if you're searching for some reason to back this war. Saddam Hussein was contained. You're buying into the administration's bullshit reasoning for this war. Invading Iraq was a luxury that we couldn't/can't afford.

I want you to think of the 11,000 plus REAL human lives that have been lost because of this war. Was it really worth it?





--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: The Mamas and The Papas - Strange Young Girls



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Learyfan]
    #3232515 - 10/08/04 10:00 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

It's as if you're searching for some reason to back this war.

i thought we'd already settled this. i've reasons first, and a conclusion later. if i had an emotional need to support the war, i wouldn't have changed my mind on it so many times. right now, the facts of the situation leave me convinced that despite the obvious risks and costs of invading iraq, it was the right choice. i could reverse that position in 10 minutes if i was presented with something persuasive enough.

no offense meant to you learyfan, but i find it ironic that someone who obsessively posts anti-bush pictures with almost every thread would be warning me about a possible emotional need to find reasons to support a particular cause in order to defend my "world view".


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLearyfanS
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 32,002
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3232534 - 10/08/04 10:07 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

no offense meant to you learyfan, but i find it ironic that someone who obsessively posts anti-bush pictures with almost every thread would be warning me about a possible emotional need to find reasons to support a particular cause in order to defend my "world view".




I don't understand why that's ironic.





--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: The Mamas and The Papas - Strange Young Girls



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3232637 - 10/08/04 10:35 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

he physically expelled them from iraq at least once,

No he didn't.

and on other occasions made it impossible for them to inspect certain sites or obtain documents, making it useless for them to stay.

No, he prevented them inspecting 4% of sites, usually his palaces, to prevent the CIA infiltrated "weapons inspectors" spying on his regime. Nothing to do with any "WMD".

you are suggesting that saddam hussein's regime was anything but uncooperative with weapons inspections

Sorry, but I'll have to go with the weapons inspectors who were actually there. Ritter said Iraq co-operated, so did Blix.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,477
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 11 days, 19 hours
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Learyfan]
    #3233074 - 10/08/04 12:38 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Learyfan said:
In your opinion, why did Saddam need to be removed more than any of the other evil dictators?





I didn't say he NEEDED to be removed. I said America could have made a case to remove him. Especially if we waited until the war with Afghanistan was done, and bin Laden was dead. And a case could have been made WITHOUT ever mentioning WMD's.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEonTan
bird
 User Gallery
Registered: 08/18/04
Posts: 468
Loc: very south
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Xlea321]
    #3234282 - 10/08/04 06:45 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Consult Butler. He has a different take on the inspections.

Are you just as confused as Saadam. Inspectors are SPIES.

BUTLER RAN UNSCOM not ritter. Blix came in after Butler was removed from his job for not Turning the blind eye.

Inspectors were not there to make Saadam feel comfortable, they were there on a JOB.

Spying on the Regime is what the inspectors were there for. It had everything to do with WMD, and disarming. What the hell does Iraq have that the USA doesn't? What could we have learned from his regime, that was beneficial to us. Did he invent some new form of torture that we could not think up on our own?

Saadam should just be thankful he had an entire Decade to continue his Bullshit, becasue of Pacifist like you. He should have been taken care of back in 1991. I think the world would have felt it more justified with the Kuwait invasion still fresh on the brain.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: EonTan]
    #3235983 - 10/09/04 09:27 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Inspectors are SPIES

No, weapons inspectors are there to disarm the country, not to spy on the regime. That's why they were called weapons inspectors and not spies. The CIA infiltration of the weapons inspectors was common knowledge.

Saadam should just be thankful he had an entire Decade to continue his Bullshit

What bullshit? He had no WMD.

becasue of Pacifist like you

Pacifists made the decision not to invade Iraq in 1991?
I thought it was Bush's father who realised what his son didn't - that removing Saddam would unleash the unholiest of shitstorms and probably lead to a fundamentalist regime.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Xlea321]
    #3236907 - 10/09/04 03:51 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

No he didn't.

yes he did. read the long list of news articles and UN sanctions i've provided.

No, he prevented them inspecting 4% of sites, usually his palaces, to prevent the CIA infiltrated "weapons inspectors" spying on his regime

source?

Ritter said Iraq co-operated

cooperated during what period of time?

what exactly did ritter say, and was this before or after the bribery?

so did Blix.

during what period of time? what were his exact words? did hans blix say that iraq consistantly cooperated with weapons inspectors throughout the entire decade? does he deny the published news reports i've provided here? does he believe that the UN got it all wrong when they issued almost a dozen resolutions condemning iraq for failure to cooperate?

some sources would be nice.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3238743 - 10/10/04 09:02 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

yes he did.

No he didn't. The UN withdrew the weapons inspectors.

does he deny the published news reports i've provided here?

Which news reports are you referring to?

And no, I doubt Blix can be bothered to "doubt" news reports you can find in on the net in a two minute google search. He was too busy on the ground in Iraq actually searching for the weapons.

does he believe that the UN got it all wrong when they issued almost a dozen resolutions condemning iraq for failure to cooperate?

Why do you appeal to authority when the UN produces conclusions you agree with, yet reject it when the UN doesn't authorise an invasion?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3238751 - 10/10/04 09:12 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

and was this before or after the bribery?

Do you have a reliable and creditable source for this "bribery"? Or are you just going on what the notoriously unreliable and unbiased pink has told you?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGreat_Satan
prophet of God
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 953
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Xlea321]
    #3238753 - 10/10/04 09:17 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Great_Satan]
    #3238764 - 10/10/04 09:26 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Syria? I guess it makes about as much sense as pink's theory that they're in someone swimming pool.

:rolleyes:

And where are the Iraqis who built them? The Iraqis who moved them? The places where they were built? The raw materials they built them with?

Try and THINK germ.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEonTan
bird
 User Gallery
Registered: 08/18/04
Posts: 468
Loc: very south
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Xlea321]
    #3243375 - 10/11/04 02:05 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Do you always argue the past with the future? WE DID NOT KNOW UNTIL AFTER THE WAR. Everything else was taking Saadam at his own word. Something he did not live up to for over a decade.

Read Butler's account of the inspections. HAVE YOU YET? He isn't American, and he is for the stop of nuclear proliferation. He also agrees with you that going to War with Iraq, without a consensus in the security council would lead to problems. But he still thinks it was serious enough to go to war to MAKE SURE. We just didn't get his consensus.

Are you opposed to the war itself? The timing? What if the inspectors went back in and Saadam continued his games? Would you feel differently?

I am trying to understand why you oppose holding Saadam accountable for his Invasion of Kuwait, and subsequent violations. Nowhere in your thousands upon thousands of posts can I find an answer to anything. You provide no solutions to any problems that exist in the world, you just argue against others positions.

What would Alex123 do if Saadam continued his games? I know, you argue the validity of the claims that he was not cooperating!!! We say Saadam has to be 100 % cooperative, and you argue he was 96%. We demand a A+, you except the B+. We quote Butler at any time throughout the last 13 years, you quote Ritter when he agrees with you only.

Explain to me Why I should feel safe with letting a Guy like Saadam continue to ignore aouthority that he himself agreed to. Why should anyone on the planet feel safe. Do you think sanctions should have continued? Or should we have just said, you win. WHAT IF ANYTHING WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: EonTan]
    #3243637 - 10/11/04 03:03 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

WE DID NOT KNOW UNTIL AFTER THE WAR.

But we had a fucking good idea. That's why Bush was so desperate to remove the weapons inspectors before they proved him wrong.

But he still thinks it was serious enough to go to war to MAKE SURE.

Make sure of what?

Are you opposed to the war itself?

Yes.

The timing?

Yes.

I am trying to understand why you oppose holding Saadam accountable for his Invasion of Kuwait

I don't. Kuwait was "liberated", or at least handed over back to the psychotic bunch of dictators who obey Washington.

You provide no solutions to any problems that exist in the world, you just argue against others positions.

And what solutions do you offer? Invade Iraq in 2003 on the basis of lies? What kind of "solution" is that?

We say Saadam has to be 100 % cooperative, and you argue he was 96%

Oh come on for fucks sake. This is the real world. Since when is anything ever "100%"? The law says you arn't supposed to take drugs 100% of the time too. Have you ever taken a drug? Then why havn't you given yourself up to the police and asked them to imprison you?

Ritter said Saddam co-operated 96% of the time, the other 4% was times when the CIA infiltrated "weapons inspectors" wanted access to his palaces to install intelligence equipment. He said Iraq was 95% disarmed - a figure greater than any other country on earth. That's pretty good going in the real world.

Explain to me Why I should feel safe with letting a Guy like Saadam continue to ignore aouthority that he himself agreed to.

There are dozens of other countries defying UN resolutions. Why arn't you screaming to invade them?

Why should anyone on the planet feel safe.

Were you hiding under your bed because Saddam was in Iraq? What were you afraid of exactly?

WHAT IF ANYTHING WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?

I wouldn't have propped up his dictatorship when he was committing the bulk of his crimes throughout the 80's. Just like I wouldn't have funded and armed Bin Laden and the fundamentalists in Afghanistan.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEonTan
bird
 User Gallery
Registered: 08/18/04
Posts: 468
Loc: very south
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Xlea321]
    #3243794 - 10/11/04 03:38 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

You are absurd.

We are dealing with Weapons and disarmarment and you use individual drug use as an argument.

We did not have a good idea. This is an assumption by you. So is the notion that the Inspectors were pulled to cover this up.

Withdrawl from Kuwait was not his only responsibility. He agreed to Disarm under supervision. He did not live up to that.

Were talking WMD, not marijuana smoke. We are talking populations not indiciduals. 100% is where you need to be.  Do you think it odd that a country with WMD would be responsible enough to account for 100% of there weapons. Why hold Saadam to a lesser degree, certainly Why when he agreed to it.

Ritter, Ritter, Ritter. Read Butler!!!  He had the big picture. Ritter was a piece of the pie, Bultler ws in charge of the whole pie.

Othr countries violate sanctions. Saadam violated his cease fire agreements. Big difference.  One is violating something we say, and they did not agree to.  I do support holding people accountable to the choices THEY MAKE.

I'm afraid that more people in the world will be like you. I am afraid that this will make it very easy for BAD shit to take Place.
Ex. Nazi Germany.

Yes you wouldn't do this, you wouldn't do that. Well guess what, someone has to do something or nothing ever gets done. 

What I get out of you is that you have NO SOLUTIONS, just complaints.

I never was screaming Invade. Just quietly supporting it.

I go to work every day, so I can't hide under my bed.

Show me a nation of Alex123, it doesn't exist ANYWHERE. If it did it wouldn't be a nation of ALEX123 for long.  A band of 80 year old cripples could take it in a day.

I am convinced that most Nations just did not want to PAY for enfocing there own International laws. Pay with lives or money.

Your inability to take REAL WORLD VIOLENCE SERIOUSLY is disturbing.  I mean really, your 100% argument is just  :shocked: weird.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: EonTan]
    #3246169 - 10/12/04 01:47 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

We are dealing with Weapons and disarmarment and you use individual drug use as an argument.

No, I'm making the point that in the real world getting people to obey you 100% is always going to impossible and an unreasonable position to take. Hitler couldn't make the jews obey 100% in Auschwitz for christs sake.

He agreed to Disarm under supervision. He did not live up to that.

He did. There were no WMD in Iraq. How can you even argue this?

Othr countries violate sanctions. Saadam violated his cease fire agreements

No he didn't. If you can find me a "ceasefire agreement" saying "We have every right to invade Iraq" please do so. What you will find is UN resolution 641. Resolution 641 calls on Saddam to "ACCEPT" the terms of the ceasefire. That's a very important legal point. It does not say "We will invade you in 12 years time if we feel like it". The only body who can decide the suitable punishment if he disobeys sanctions is the UN. They decided against invasion.

What I get out of you is that you have NO SOLUTIONS

I've told you my solution. Never prop up brutal dictators in power in the first place. That really is the only solution worthy of the name.

I am convinced that most Nations just did not want to PAY for enfocing there own International laws

I'm sorry but you seem to have this ass backwards. Launching an invasion of another country 3000 miles away in blatant defiance of the UN and all international law IS against international law.

Your inability to take REAL WORLD VIOLENCE SERIOUSLY is disturbing

I take it seriously. That's why I'm against launching illegal invasions in defiance of the UN.

Why do you think Bush invaded Iraq? Do you seriously believe that in his discussions with his men he sat there going "They've not obeyed UN resolutions and I'm terrified about WMD, it really is time to invade". Seriously?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEonTan
bird
 User Gallery
Registered: 08/18/04
Posts: 468
Loc: very south
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Xlea321]
    #3246840 - 10/12/04 10:50 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Your a funny guy.  :tongue:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: EonTan]
    #3246852 - 10/12/04 10:53 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

EonTan said:
Your a funny guy.  :tongue:




If by "funny" you mean "right" and "stomped your ass" then yes. :thumbup:

Nice post Alex.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Xlea321]
    #3247182 - 10/12/04 12:24 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

No, I'm making the point that in the real world getting people to obey you 100% is always going to impossible and an unreasonable position to take.

what was preventing saddam hussein from complying 100%?

I've told you my solution. Never prop up brutal dictators in power in the first place.

and what if it's too late for that and they're already in place? what if someone else props them up? what if they come to power on their own?

not propping up dictators is probably a good idea, but it's not a cure-all solution.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: unbeliever]
    #3247221 - 10/12/04 12:34 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Nice post Alex.

:laugh:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: ]
    #3247233 - 10/12/04 12:38 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

what was preventing saddam hussein from complying 100%?

Because he was aware the CIA had infiltrated the weapons inspections team and knew that they were trying to get access to his palaces to install god knows what intelligence equipment in there?

and what if it's too late for that and they're already in place?

Ok, lets take Allawi as an example. You've just had to go to war to get rid of the last fucking maniac you propped up surely the sensible thing to do is not install another fucking maniac? Allawi is a guy who walks into a police station and personally executes 6 prisoners. To me, that sounds deranged enough to assume that he could be a problem one day. Get rid of him now.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEonTan
bird
 User Gallery
Registered: 08/18/04
Posts: 468
Loc: very south
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: unbeliever]
    #3247293 - 10/12/04 12:54 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Oh yah I feel really worked over by the same POINTLESS argument.

You either sided with ENGLANd and THE USA or you sided with RUSSIA, GERMANY, CHINA, FRANCE and SAADAM.

I think the list alone should tell you something.

The UN did not have the balls to be taken seriously. Saadam new this, the USA knew this, and England Knew this. Apparently you don't give a shit about ACCOUNTABILITY. I do. Certainly when the STAKES are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

THIS IS MY JUSTIFICATION. You can't defeat my justification, by citing arguments against BUSH's percieved(by you)intentions for entering the war. GET IT.

Argue to me WHY a NATION THAT AGREED TO INSPECTIONS but DID EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO PREVENT THEM, is RIGHT.

But there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction is not an argument. Only to me. We are not absolutely positive that there are none, were none. We are positive that SAADAM has none. Thanks to the WAR you did not support.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: EonTan]
    #3247317 - 10/12/04 01:00 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

You're a funny guy Eon  :smile:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEonTan
bird
 User Gallery
Registered: 08/18/04
Posts: 468
Loc: very south
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: Xlea321]
    #3247333 - 10/12/04 01:03 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

So you take the word of Saadam over the words of Butler. The CIA? Come on that is not an argument. That is an Excuse for ignoring your own agreements. I can't believe you actually use that one!!!!

Who would you put in charge of a provisional governmnet in Iraq? Who would take the Job? The point is to only have a provisional governmnet until the people of Iraq can vote in their own Governmnet. It is not a permanent position. It is a temporary job.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: EonTan]
    #3247385 - 10/12/04 01:13 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

EonTan said:
Oh yah I feel really worked over by the same POINTLESS argument.





I understand it's frustrating to keep running into those pesky facts that debunk your argument.

Quote:

EonTan said:
You either sided with ENGLANd and THE USA or you sided with RUSSIA, GERMANY, CHINA, FRANCE and SAADAM.

I think the list alone should tell you something.





What's wrong with france, germany or even russia? You're trying to paint this strict black and white picture, like Bush does, of good and evil with no room for the peaceful protest of neutrality. I actually admire France and Germany for not being bullied into a rushed war based on flimy evidence.

Quote:

EonTan said:
The UN did not have the balls to be taken seriously. Saadam new this, the USA knew this, and England Knew this. Apparently you don't give a shit about ACCOUNTABILITY. I do. Certainly when the STAKES are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.





Lets see. Over a decade ago, Saddam invaded Kuwait. Bush Sr. went in, stopped that and we increased the sanctions and inspections on Saddam, insisting that he disarm. Since that time he has not invaded his neighbors, he has not acquired or had the ability to aquire any WMD and generally he was simply not a threat, let alone an immediate threat warranting a rush to war. And if you're so concerned about those WMD, how about Iran and North Korea, both countries have moved forward in their weapons programs while we were busy playing cowboys and indians in Iraq. Hell, the U.S. has been ramping up their WMD programs.

Quote:

EonTan said:
THIS IS MY JUSTIFICATION. You can't defeat my justification, by citing arguments against BUSH's percieved(by you)intentions for entering the war. GET IT.





It isn't a matter of perceived intentions. It's a matter of direct facts presented to us by the Bush administration as absolute truth. All of which have been proven wrong.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clark, press briefing, March 22, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

Quote:

EonTan said:
Argue to me WHY a NATION THAT AGREED TO INSPECTIONS but DID EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO PREVENT THEM, is RIGHT.




Everything possible? Oh please, they cooperated except when we tried to spy on them. You know what our response to that was? WE pulled out the inspectors and then promptly bombed the country. Brilliant eh?

Quote:

EonTan said:
But there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction is not an argument. Only to me. We are not absolutely positive that there are none, were none. We are positive that SAADAM has none. Thanks to the WAR you did not support.




The war had nothing to do with Saddam's lack of WMD. The Duefler report that Bush himself comissioned made it clear that there were no WMD and haven't been since the gulf war. It was explicitely stated that Iraq today is less of a threat than it was in the early 90s. In contrast, Iran is now MORE dangerous than it was just a couple of years ago.

The American people and the world were sold the idea that this pre-emptive attack and invasion on Iraq was because they possessed weapons of mass destruction, the ability to fire them at enemies and the intent to do so. The only part of that which is true is the intent, and even that is arguably just a bluff. I think Saddam understood the concept of mutally assured destruction. I think he was counting on it. Without his neighbors and the world thinking he had WMD, he was a lame duck that would be torn apart in a second. Which is why we attacked them, because Bush likely knew the WMD story was bullshit. You only have to compare it to the countries we know for a fact have WMD, Iran and North Korea for example, and realize that we're letting them go un-checked because of the real threat of a war involving WMD.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: WMD: The Final Judgement [Re: unbeliever]
    #3250514 - 10/13/04 01:15 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Nice post. No wonder Eon's gone quiet  :thumbup:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate, Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Amazon Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Pentagon WMD Report Stokes Doubts About Prewar Intel Zahid 363 0 09/29/03 11:10 PM
by Zahid
* Cheney: War was justified BECAUSE NO WMD's FOUND
( 1 2 3 4 all )
1stimer 6,449 72 10/11/04 01:28 PM
by EonTan
* To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq:
( 1 2 3 4 all )
JohnnyRespect 4,127 70 06/30/03 05:17 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* UN Inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before and after war HagbardCeline 779 17 06/12/04 11:04 AM
by Xlea321
* Part of Saddam's WMD found!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Snobrdr311 7,807 97 02/14/04 10:55 AM
by Anonymous
* Blix - "No WMD since 1991" Xlea321 798 8 12/25/03 09:46 PM
by enimatpyrt
* WMDs found in Iraq???
( 1 2 all )
SirTripAlot 1,724 21 06/23/06 10:20 AM
by Vvellum
* Inspectors conclude "No WMD since 1994" Xlea321 1,288 8 03/04/04 11:53 PM
by Xlea321

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
6,045 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.151 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 16 queries.