Bush's Lunacy?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+26 June 2004 - 18:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 26 June 2004 - 18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 13:34
They knew where they&#39;d destroyed them, they just didnt have confirmed paperwork as to amounts.... all evidence the Inspectors looked at appeared to Confirm what the Iraqi&#39;s were saying in these areas.. they just couldnt Verify the information (as they&#39;d been destroyed)...

---

Look they had 12 years to comply and they didn’t. If everything had destroyed the Saddam wouldn’t have kicked out the inspectors and would have let them look whenever and where ever they wanted. That wasn’t the case though. The inspectors were allowed to search when Saddam said and where he said. [/b][/quote]

These weapons were destroyed in 1991 I believe.... possibly in case the Allies did follow through and Invade Iraq, as so collar him for their possession then. Possibly in Compliance to what they knew what would happen, however without admitting to their people that they had complied... or possibly because their shelf life had expired, following the end of the Iraq/Iran war or scared of what the Kurd bombing consequences would be...who knows...

Before the 1st Inspection Process, where they werent co-operating, even so..


They didnt have Verifiable paperwork as to amounts involved.

The amounts of broken shell fragments and not wholley destroyed ordnance implied that the amounts they were claiming were correct.

However the technology needed to verify these amounts was Blocked...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 13:57
These weapons were destroyed in 1991 I believe....

---

Really? Then care to explain why he threw the inspectors out in 1998?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+26 June 2004 - 19:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 26 June 2004 - 19:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 13:57
These weapons were destroyed in 1991 I believe....

---

Really? Then care to explain why he threw the inspectors out in 1998? [/b][/quote]
For spying as I recall. It was latter verified that the CIA had managed to get an agent or two onto the UN team.

He didnt "Throw the Inspectors" out..

He threw a spy out that was amongst the Inspectors (CIA), and the UN withdrew the rest.... As he would not thereafter allow an American Inspector, for obvious reasons...

I guess the thrown out and withdrew saga is another one of those where you sit on the political fence.

The inspectors weren’t allowed to do their work as I said earlier. Why wouldn’t Saddam allow these people to do the job that they were sent in to do? If he had nothing to hide and wanted to come forward with everything that he had he would allowed the inspectors to do their work and make a complete and full investigation.

So, I assume you&#39;d be quite happy for the KGB to have toured your military facilities in the 80&#39;s?

As thats what your saying.

He never stopped the inspectors, the Americans did....they planted a spy, and when he was caught and thrown out (as you do when you catch spies) ... they put pressure on the UN to withdraw the inspectors, as Iraq (for pretty obvious reasons) decided they would allow no American Inspectors now... So guess who insisted that there must be an American Inspector afterwards...


Another case of "Do as we say, not as we do" <_<

I think there may be a small difference in the KGB and the UN.

Quote:

---

He never stopped the inspectors, the Americans did....

---

I think there may be a small difference in the KGB and the UN.

The inspectors couldn’t do the job that they were sent in to do. They could only inspect what Saddam wanted them to see and when he wanted them to see it. They were left waiting at palace gates for more than an hour on some occasions. I guess Saddam needed time to vacuum and dust before letting company in.

1. U.N. inspectors were in Iraq, at least ostensibly looking for WMD.

Why? "Everybody" knew Saddam had none.

2. U.N. sanctions and resolutions threatened use of force in the instance of non-compliance.

Why? No signatory nation would actually follow through.

3. The U.N. resolved to keep Saddam in check militarily via embargo/blockade.

Why? He wasn&#39;t a threat to anybody.


Oooops.

There&#39;s more:

A. Depending on who you listen to, the U.N.-sponsored embargos on Iraq resulted in anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of civilian deaths, mainly children, lots of women, a sprinkling of other innocent citizens, and perhaps a soldier or two.

These deaths are the exclusive fault of the United States, as they are members of the U.N.

B. Under the good auspices of the U.N.&#39;s "oil-for-food" program, Iraqis would provided with food and medical necessities.

That the program didn&#39;t work and was a miserable failure, due to it&#39;s corrupt U.N. administration and Saddam&#39;s greed, is also clearly the fault of the U.S.

C. The U.N. will conduct it&#39;s own in-house investigation of the oil-for-food program, which will not result in public disclosure of any evidence of wrong-doing, owing to the infallibility of the U.N.

The U.S. will be blamed for any shortcomings otherwise attributable to the oil-for-food program, and chided for it&#39;s efforts to get to the bottom of things.


Uh, oh.

Time for another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@26 June 2004 - 19:52
I think there may be a small difference in the KGB and the UN.

Quote:

---

He never stopped the inspectors, the Americans did....

---

I think there may be a small difference in the KGB and the UN.

The inspectors couldn’t do the job that they were sent in to do. They could only inspect what Saddam wanted them to see and when he wanted them to see it. They were left waiting at palace gates for more than an hour on some occasions. I guess Saddam needed time to vacuum and dust before letting company in.

---

Yes, there is.

However i was comparing an Intelligence Agency with an Intelligence Agency... ie CIA and KGB, not CIA with UN.


Face the facts, out of the members of the UN Security Council the US virtually controls 30% of the vote....and they still couldnt get a majority, so Russia/France didnt even need to use their veto.


@ J2K4,

You know how i feel about the UN.

Neither your Government nor mine would ratify the changes that are needed, as they would both lose the power that they have in there; which is totally out of all perspective as to our respective populations :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 15:29
@ J2K4,

You know how i feel about the UN.

Neither your Government nor mine would ratify the changes that are needed, as they would both lose the power that they have in there; which is totally out of all perspective as to our respective populations :P

---

You&#39;ll never know how comforted I am by this small slice of sanity. :P

Truly, though:

If the U.N. is ever to re-intersect with propriety, I think the U.S. and the U.K. are the ideal seeds for the necessary "coalition".*

*How I&#39;ve come to hate that word&#33;