'Dubya'- just illogical.

[Vympel]

Mr Bush has said it is not up to him to prove Iraq has prohibited weapons, but for Iraq to prove that it does not.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/ ... 85088.html

Good to know such people can run for president and win ....

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Doesn't Bush have aides to explain these things to him?

[Wicked Pilot]

I think he was refering to the fact that the previous set of inspectors established that Saddam had NBC programs, and had produced a very large aresonal of chemical and biological weapons. It is now up to Iraq to prove that they destroyed their inventory as claimed, as opposed to simply hiding it.

[Newtonian Fury]

If Iraq shows up record of their people destroying those weapons, and it checks out with the inspectors, it will be up to Bush to prove there are still any thing left.

[haas mark]

Doesn't Bush have aides to explain these things to him?

The aides prolly confuse him while trying to do so.....

[Durandal]

Let's face reality here. Bush is going to keep sending in inspectors, and they're going to keep finding nothing. How long is this going to go on?

[Wicked Pilot]

Let's face reality here. Bush is going to keep sending in inspectors, and they're going to keep finding nothing. How long is this going to go on?

All it takes is one defector, and the inspectors will hit jackpot, and war will commence. This shouldn't take too long.

[weemadando]

Dubya's Guide to Starting a War.

Step 1: Pick a nation. In this case Iraq.
Step 2: Villify them in the media.
Step 3: Accuse them of having weapons of mass destruction.
Step 4: Villify them in the media.
Step 5: Round up supprt.
Step 6: Villify them in the media.
Step 7: Go the UN.
Step 8: Say Al'Qaeda or Bin Laden.
Step 9: Say that you will go war with them unless they hand over their weapons of mass destruction
Step 10: Villify them in the media.
Step 11: When they declare that they have no WMD's and the weapons inspectors can't find any...
Step 12: Villify them in the media.
Step 13: Then say: "We'll they're obviously hiding them. We have a cassus belli! WooHoo I get to push the big red button just like my daddy.
Step 14: War.
Step 15: Continued villification in the media.
Step 16: Achieve nothing. Look at falling ratings in opinion polls and faltering economy.
Step 17: Say that they weren't the real enemy. Goto step 1.

[Stormbringer]

I agree with Wicked Pilot, it's meant that Iraq has to prove it's not hiding something. We have plenty of good reasons to believe that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and it's up to the to prove they don't have them. At this point they have to give us a damn good reason to believe that they don't have WMDs anymore.

[Durandal]

What are those reasons? Is one of them the fact that we destroyed their only plant capable of making fissionable materials?

[Raptor 597]

If they do find something it would be amusing too watch every major Israeli city die. Nevermind the fact the Middle East would roll out the Jihad bandwagon with the hour. I will just laugh. And frankly if they are hiding something

[Shinova]

Mr Bush has said it is not up to him to prove Iraq has prohibited weapons, but for Iraq to prove that it does not.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/ ... 85088.html

Good to know such people can run for president and win ....

Anyone else notice that it sounds just like:


Innocent until proven guilty -> Guilty until proven innocent

[Stormbringer]

What are those reasons? Is one of them the fact that we destroyed their only plant capable of making fissionable materials?

Defections, the fact that we know they had a bio-chem program running, and there are intelligence reports to that affect. Certainly there are more than enough materials to demand the Iraqi's do something to back up their claims.

Anyone else notice that it sounds just like:


Innocent until proven guilty -> Guilty until proven innocent

More like you're a suspect that we have every reason to believe is guilty provide us with an alibi we actually check.

[Sea Skimmer]

Mr Bush has said it is not up to him to prove Iraq has prohibited weapons, but for Iraq to prove that it does not.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/ ... 85088.html

Good to know such people can run for president and win ....

Given that it took 17 people a week to find WMD in Iraq, I'd say he's right on the money.

[HemlockGrey]

If they do find something it would be amusing too watch every major Israeli city die. Nevermind the fact the Middle East would roll out the Jihad bandwagon with the hour. I will just laugh. And frankly if they are hiding something

Wow, you win the 'Asshole of the Day' award...

[Raptor 597]

If they do find something it would be amusing too watch every major Israeli city die. Nevermind the fact the Middle East would roll out the Jihad bandwagon with the hour. I will just laugh. And frankly if they are hiding something

Wow, you win the 'Asshole of the Day' award...

Why thank you, for I am a sore ass aren't I? If the US keeps pussy footing around and doesn't make sense too fuck around with a mad man and don't anything. You'll get bitten in the ass.

[Alyrium Denryle]

They handed a 12000 page document to the un detailing to the smallest detail every weapon they had destroyed.

[Vympel]

Given that it took 17 people a week to find WMD in Iraq, I'd say he's right on the money.

[Wicked Pilot]

They handed a 12000 page document to the un detailing to the smallest detail every weapon they had destroyed.

And we all know how accurate the report that they submitted to the UN after the Gulf War was.

[Vympel]

That's not the point. The point is the burden of proof should be on the United States to prove that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction- how exactly, pray tell, does Iraq go about proving that it doesn't- especially considering that Bush won't believe them either way? This entire venture is a farce, based on something that is completely illogical.

[Sea Skimmer]

Given that it took 17 people a week to find WMD in Iraq, I'd say he's right on the money.

Seventeen Weapons inspectors where in Iraq for less then seven days when they found artillery shells which held Mustard gas. Such should have been destroyed, and would have to for Iraq's claime of not having WMD to be true. I posted the link in the OT forum and it made the quite a few nations stations.

As it is weapons inspections don't even matter. Iraq fires on US and RAF aircraft every day. A state of war exists, punitive bombing has failed to silence the guns, stronger measures are required. The invasion will hopefully start by February.

[Sea Skimmer]

That's not the point. The point is the burden of proof should be on the United States to prove that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction- how exactly, pray tell, does Iraq go about proving that it doesn't- especially considering that Bush won't believe them either way? This entire venture is a farce, based on something that is completely illogical.

And yet the US has been proven correct in a matter of days. If where already finding stuff after less then 20 inspections, god only knows what the other 3980 will hold. Hell the Chief of the inspections stated that it they inspectors themselves though Iraq still had three tons of VX alone.

[Vympel]

And yet the US has been proven correct in a matter of days. If where already finding stuff after less then 20 inspections, god only knows what the other 3980 will hold. Hell the Chief of the inspections stated that it they inspectors themselves though Iraq still had three tons of VX alone.

Those shells were located and tagged by inspectors previously, and were slated for destruction years ago. They were found in an abandoned hangar filled with feathers and bird droppings. They had already been declared by the Iraqis- Hans Blix said himself that it was "not news". Finding them was no surprise, because they were where they had been left.

It's also besides the point- the weapons inspectors finding these is part of proving Iraq has WMD, not Iraq showing that it doesn't have any.

[data_link]

And the question I'd like to ask is: who really gives a shit whether Saddam has WMDs or not? I mean, it's not like we actually care if people are violating every UN resolution in the book - just look at Israel. Granted, given twenty years, Saddam might get a delivery system capable of reaching the US, and he might use that to hold us at bay while he conquers the Millde East, and he might then extort us for oil, but frankly, I consider the possibility that he'll pull off such a scenario about as likely as me growing a beard of green spinach. And given that that is the only way in which he could even concievably be a threat to us (he certainly isn't stupid enough to launch WMDs at us when we aren't attacking, given that we have enough nukes to obliterate every city in Iraq four times over), wouldn't this be better handled by making the US less dependant on oil?

[Vympel]

As it is weapons inspections don't even matter. Iraq fires on US and RAF aircraft every day. A state of war exists, punitive bombing has failed to silence the guns, stronger measures are required. The invasion will hopefully start by February.

The no-fly zones were unilaterally established by the US and UK after 1991, and were not authorized by the United Nations. US officials have always claimed that the U.S. government, as a member of the United Nations, has the right to unilaterally enforce any resolution of the United Nations. Such a position, however, is patently fallacious. Enforcement of an organization's rules and regulations belongs to the organization itself, not to each and every individual member of the organization.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp

Several years ago, the U.S. government knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately imposed an illegal embargo against Nicaragua. The case reached the World Court, which ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States. As part of its judgment, the World Court awarded reparations to Nicaragua.

That official court judgment is still outstanding and remains unsatisfied. The U.S. government has continually refused to comply with the judgment and has even blocked attempts of the UN Security Council to enforce it.

Suppose Nicaragua unilaterally decided to enforce the World Court's judgment by establishing a no-fly zone in the southern part of the United States, backed up with Nicaraguan planes. Suppose also that whenever U.S. radar sites locked onto the Nicaraguan planes, the pilots would fire missiles at the sites, which would occasionally kill American radar operators and nearby civilians.

What would be the response of the U.S. government? How would the American people react, both to Nicaragua's "U.S. no-fly zone" and to the killings of U.S. citizens? Everyone knows the answer.

In addition, the US/UK has implicitly admitted the non-existent legal standing of the no-fly zones by not counting Iraq firing on their warplanes as a 'material breach'.