Sarin-loaded artillery shell in Iraq

[Mr Manifesto]

Drooper-

Thank you for posting this information. I am sure that everyone is aware of the actual reasons for this action in Iraq. I have posted the same information myself ad nauseum. Apparently, political ideology is more powerful or more important than critical thinking. There is so much intellectual dishonesty in the political forum of the JREF that I no longer refer people here because I am ashamed that that this is actually considered a skeptic's forum.

Read: "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, but I can't back up my own arguments, so I've spat the dummy and told my Mom she can't post here either."

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I see this thread is descending into a game of Whack-the-Warmonger-Rat.

"This proves Saddam was in possession of WMD's!"
"No it doesn't, and even if it did, it isn't justification for the war in Iraq." >WHACK<
"But he violated UN Regulations!"
"Not proven, even if it was, not a justification to go to war." >WHACK<
"Are you just going to sit around while he makes more WMD's!?"
"It hasn't been proven that he was in the process of making more WMD's... Or even that he was capable of doing same after GW I... It's pretty much a given that the UN strategy was working." >WHACK<
"What about all the Iraqis who were dying under Saddam's tyranny?"
"It's not your job to decide who runs what country, and before you wring your hands over those civilians who you love so much, just remember who put Saddam where he was." >WHACK<
"What about the Iraqis who were dying under the sanctions?"
"Your sanctions." >WHACK<
"But Saddam was in possession of WMD's..!"

 

[Drooper]

I see this thread is descending into a game of Whack-the-Warmonger-Rat.

"This proves Saddam was in possession of WMD's!"
"No it doesn't, and even if it did, it isn't justification for the war in Iraq." >WHACK<
"But he violated UN Regulations!"
"Not proven, even if it was, not a justification to go to war." >WHACK<
"Are you just going to sit around while he makes more WMD's!?"
"It hasn't been proven that he was in the process of making more WMD's... Or even that he was capable of doing same after GW I... It's pretty much a given that the UN strategy was working." >WHACK<
"What about all the Iraqis who were dying under Saddam's tyranny?"
"It's not your job to decide who runs what country, and before you wring your hands over those civilians who you love so much, just remember who put Saddam where he was." >WHACK<
"What about the Iraqis who were dying under the sanctions?"
"Your sanctions." >WHACK<
"But Saddam was in possession of WMD's..!"

funny that,

I see this as having descended into debating with a socialist political reactionary.

As with many things it's mind over matter.

I don't mind that you don't matter.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

funny that,

I see this as having descended into debating with a socialist political reactionary.

As with many things it's mind over matter.

I don't mind that you don't matter.

Yeah, "War is a last resort" is sooooooooo reactionary.

 

[Ashi]

Mr Manifesto -

How about a bit of actual intellectual debate? Your infantile responses and inability to actually address the issue at hand seem to be par for the course for this forum.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Read: "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, but I can't back up my own arguments, so I've spat the dummy and told my Mom she can't post here either."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can blather on about my inability to back up my arguments but I have yet to see you actually address the issue without running off at the mouth with ad hominem attacks and unjustifiable assertions. Why don’t you attempt to make a legitimate argument and act like the critically thinking skeptic you pretend to be. You probably can’t do this so I won’t hold my breath for a reasoned response but I will give it a shot anyway.


If you have the ability, please read the following points and try to look at the situation from a non-biased perspective. Again, actually read the information without filtering the facts through your personal political ideology. I am more than willing to change my mind on the issue if I am mistaken about the facts but I have yet to hear a decent rebuttal to my argument.

1. After the first Gulf war, Iraq agreed to the UN resolutions (1991) that are listed here http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/ as the conditions for a cease-fire.

2. Iraq consistently did not fulfill its obligations concerning the conditions for the cease-fire. There are examples such as this http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/981228/1998122833.html where Iraqi military fired upon UN aircraft and there is also the failures listed by Hans Blix http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/ among other actual, documented, factual evidence that Iraq was breaking the conditions of the original cease-fire as well as later UN resolutions.

3. UN resolution 1441 was drafted after over a decade of Iraq blatantly refusing to fulfill the above mentioned conditions. This resolution states that Iraq is in clear material breach and was unanimously signed by every nation on the UNSC. Prior UN resolutions such as 687 as well as the US Congress authorized the US to use military force to bring Iraq into compliance.

“….Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area.”


It is my argument that this is the primary, official and absolutely legal reason for the second Gulf war. I have yet to see any examples of statements made my Bush, Blair, Powell or other high ranking government officials that contradict this. The factual reason we are in Iraq seems clear to me without having to infer/imply diabolical political plots, corporate conspiracy theories, religious crusades or tidal influences from Planet X.

The question of the “real” reason for the war seems to be simply politics as usual, or people making up “facts” to support their political ideology. I continually see people who rant on and on about Bush “lying about WMD’s”, “wanting Iraqi oil” or “tying 9/11 to Iraq” along with other statements that they cannot find any facts to justify. I feel that the majority of people are just so caught up in their own ideological righteousness that they cannot step back and look at the facts. I have seen tons of anecdotal evidence supporting other “real” reasons for this action, but I have yet to see any factual evidence that supports any of them. I have also seen tons of anecdotal evidence for UFO’s and Bigfoot but that does not make them any more “real”.

Ok, now you can bring the ad hominem attacks. I expect no more from you but I have been wrong before.

 

[peptoabysmal]

the left? How is the lack of hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq a left or right issue? How is asking for evidence just associated by yourself to the left? People all over the political spectrum are questioning the lack of evidence and the intelligence failures as in regards the Bush and Blair's claims regarding WMDs.

Now that the US forces have finally found one shell, where did it origionate from? Is the Sarin inside potent? Are there more? If so lets find them, keep them out of the hands of desperate Baathists and Islamic men bent on Jihad.

It doesn't say where it came from although Saddam apologists are quick to point out that it is probably from Saddam's old stash.

I'm just saying they found one. One is not the same as none.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Oh yeah, and if you don't know that the cry of the wild liberal this last year has been "No WMD's!", where on Earth have you been?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Ashi: What you seem to be forgetting is that it isn't up to the US to enforce 1441. That is a decison for the UN Security Council. The Security Council did not decide if a breach had been made yet, and, if a breach had occurred, whether armed force was required.

That's why Bush got all itchy, coalition of the willing, blah-blah-blah.

In other words, not only have you been wrong before, but you're wrong now.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Ashi: What you seem to be forgetting is that it isn't up to the US to enforce 1441. That is a decison for the UN Security Council. The Security Council did not decide if a breach had been made yet, and, if a breach had occurred, whether armed force was required.

That's why Bush got all itchy, coalition of the willing, blah-blah-blah.

In other words, not only have you been wrong before, but you're wrong now.

The representative of the United States noted that, while primary responsibility rested with the Council for the disarmament of Iraq, nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security.

Press Release SC/7564

 

[Mr Manifesto]

That's right, Peppy, and what threat to the United States, world peace or security was Iraq?

>WHACK<

 

[Drooper]

Yeah, "War is a last resort" is sooooooooo reactionary.

reaction; in response to action (taken after a 12 year procrastination).

Like shooting socialist reactionary fish in a barrel. <BANG>

 

[Mr Manifesto]

reaction; in response to action (taken after a 12 year procrastination).

Like shooting socialist reactionary fish in a barrel. <BANG>

Do yourself a favour- look up 'reactionary' in the dictionary.

 

[Drooper]

This has become like shooting fish in a barrel.

The ubiquitous Socialist Worker placards are waving around this forum, with their catchy, but intellectually vacuous statements.

Socialist Reactionary: The war had nothng to do with UNSCOM!!!
A: then why did nearly every UNSC resolution on Iraq after 678 claim it was?? <POW>

Socialist Reactionary: We didn't give UNSCOM enough time!!!!
A: 12 years? Are you revolving in close orbit around a black hole? <BANG>

Socialist Reactionary: Just because two sarin spiked warheads have been found, which originated from a batch hidden from UNSCM by the Iraqis doesn't mean there is any evidence that Saddam did have WMDs!!!!!
A: errrrrrr. OK <POP>

Socialist Reactionary: Those were old weapons, so they don't count!!!!!!
A: Old WMDs, well that's alright then. But you better tell the UNSC who forgot to put mitigation into any resolution covering Iraqi disarmament. <POW>

Socialist Reactionary: It wasn't up to the US to enforce resolution 1441!!!!!!
A: Who then was going to enforce it then, you? <BANG>



Wow, I'm not usually one for animal cruelty, but this is just so easy.

 

[Drooper]

OED:

Reactionary: tending to oppose change and advocate return to a former system

Oh, so its Saddam you want and the WMD issue is all a smoke screen.

I see. <BANG>

 

[EGarrett]

Drooper,

You have to add >WHACK!< after each answer. That somehow makes them true.

 

[Drooper]

Drooper,

You have to add >WHACK!< after each answer. That somehow makes them true.

 

[BillyTK]

What a Straw Man. I am aware of 660 and also aware that it is irrelevant as it was issued to deal with the invasion of Kuwait. I never said it was invoked for the second war.

Resolution 678 was constructed to address the situation after the war, the disarment of Iraq, setting out its obligatons for revealing and destroying any WMDs in their possession and any manufacturing or researcg facilities for the same. It was the repeated violation of the terms of this resolution that led to 1441 and hence the war.

Not a strawman. The argument offered by US/UK was that the (alleged) Iraqi violations of the various UN resolutions gave automatic authority for military action against Iraq, when in fact, the action that is authorised (via tracing the various resolutions back to 660) is to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait

There is scope within the ceasefire agreement as laid out in 678 for military action, for military action, but this is only in response to Iraqi aggression against UN members and their forces. Use of WMDs might constitute such a threat, but possession, in and of itself, doesn't. Whilst possession is a violation of 678, this doesn't automatically grant authority for use of force, because, as you agree, 660 is irrelevant. Use of force would require a new resolution.

They also tended to interpret the phrase "final opportunity" as just that, as opposed to the last opportunity befroe another opportunity.

They also tended to interpret "comply with in 30 days" as just that, as opposed to comply within 30 years.

Irrelevant; "serious consequences" is not the same as, "using all available means"

In the end the US and UK and others just got sick of the procrastination and took action. We now know why Jacque Chirac and his buddies would have preferred another 12 years of the oil for food program.

We do? Maybe Powell is implicated in there as well, as he was calling for a change to the sanction system (for "smart sanctions" IIRC) in 2001. Regardless of the smearing, if US/UK want to act outside of the authority of the UN, they should do so, and not try and justify their actions in terms of the institution and its process they've rejected.

I'm not vague at all. You said an I will quote you:

Originally posted by me:
the basis of Gulf War II, which was about the threat Hussein currently posed—nuclear weapons programme, 45 minute launch capability, that kind of thing— not about what he had or did 20 years ago, before Gulf War I and UNSCOM

It had everything to do with what had gone on over the last 20 years insofar as Iraq's WMD capaibility was built over that time and remained. It had nothing per se to do with a nuclear weapons program beyond the fact that it would fall within the definition of WMDs. It had everything to do withn UNSCOM, given that it was the failure to cooperate with UNSCOM that was a direct violation of 1441 (and all preceding resolutions on this subject).

That's really odd; you've quoted me but your response here would indicate that you haven't paid any attention to what I said. By the way, when did Hans Blix say there was a material failure in cooperation with UNSCOM? How exactly does 1441 authorise military action against Iraq anyway?

 

[BillyTK]

oh and >WHACK!<

 

[BillyTK]

[...]Whether you or I deem them as serious WMDs is really academic.

[...]

I guess the answer to that one lies in the meaning of the term WMDs? "serious WMDs" strikes me as a pleonasm*.

*It's my new favourite word!

 

[Mr Manifesto]

This has become like shooting fish in a barrel.

The ubiquitous Socialist Worker placards are waving around this forum, with their catchy, but intellectually vacuous statements.

Socialist Reactionary: The war had nothng to do with UNSCOM!!!
A: then why did nearly every UNSC resolution on Iraq after 678 claim it was?? <POW>

Socialist Reactionary: We didn't give UNSCOM enough time!!!!
A: 12 years? Are you revolving in close orbit around a black hole? <BANG>

Socialist Reactionary: Just because two sarin spiked warheads have been found, which originated from a batch hidden from UNSCM by the Iraqis doesn't mean there is any evidence that Saddam did have WMDs!!!!!
A: errrrrrr. OK <POP>

Socialist Reactionary: Those were old weapons, so they don't count!!!!!!
A: Old WMDs, well that's alright then. But you better tell the UNSC who forgot to put mitigation into any resolution covering Iraqi disarmament. <POW>

Socialist Reactionary: It wasn't up to the US to enforce resolution 1441!!!!!!
A: Who then was going to enforce it then, you? <BANG>



Wow, I'm not usually one for animal cruelty, but this is just so easy.

Try wrapping your head around one, simple concept: war is a last resort.

The US forgot that. Vietnam, it seems, was too long ago. Now they are caught in an expensive, bloody mess in the Middle East. Their credibility on the international stage is sod-all. They have given more people the means, motive and opportunity to become terrorists by their ill thought-out actions in Iraq. This is what happens when you ride off like cowboys to fight a war with no puropse, and no goal, like the US and the 'Coalition of the Willing' did.