Did the UN fail?

[GePap]

I know you did..but most of the discussion past Kramerman's post ignored the main issue.

[Velociryx]

UR: In answer to your question....

As many as he wanted.

-=Vel=-

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Velociryx
UR: In answer to your question....

As many as he wanted.

-=Vel=-

Is this just some lame excuse for covering up the fact that in 22 days no WMD have been found? I'll be really disappointed...

[Koyaanisqatsi]

12 (35) years available to hide.

22 days available to find.

What do you think?

[Master Zen]

Well, we'll find out soon enough

[GePap]

Originally posted by dv8ed
12 (35) years available to hide.

22 days available to find.

What do you think?

That if in those 35 years they hid them so well, they could hardly have been ready or very able to use them:

yeah boss, they will never find them!'
Where are they?
200 feet down!
So how the hell do we use them?
Ah....good question.
Bad answer..... *gunshot*, you , start digging.

I will give them 6 weeks past the declared end of hosdtilities to find something big.

Accordoing to them, they have to account for 500 tons of chemcial agents, 35,000 liters of antharx, and mobile bio-labs, nuclear facilities, so forth and so on.

[gsmoove23]

Don't you understand? They don't have to account for them, if they're not in Iraq they must be in Syria and Iran.

CHAAAAAAAARGE!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Don't you understand? They don't have to account for them, if they're not in Iraq they must be in Syria and Iran.

CHAAAAAAAARGE!

that is the most hilarious thing I've heard in my life!!!!!



* still laughing



and after they're not in Syria and Iran who's next, Nicaragua and Mozambique??? Search the world until you find them??

[Ned]

I have a feeling that we are going to find the truth in the next month or so. We will talk to the scientist that Saddam hid from us - assuming that Saddam has not murdered them. They will lead us to the stockpiles or explain whether they were shipped to Syria - or if Saddam destroyed them like he said but without keeping any records.

If it turns out that Saddam was telling the truth, then I will reconsider whether what happened at the UN was a failure because of US impatience.

Will you, GePap, offer the same if it turns out that Saddam was lying?

[Velociryx]

Some things that people conveniently forget:

1) Saddam gassed his own people with the very chemical agents we are talking about.

2) Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran.

Now....if we discount for just a moment the notion that the fairy godmother of weapons of mass destruction waved her magic wand and suddenly made them appear before Saddam Hussein, then we must conclude that he either made them himself, or bought them from someone else. Fair enough?

Some of this stuff, we sold him ourself a long time ago, back when he was our boy, so we know he's got that. Now, given that our allies would NEVER go against the UN sanctions (haven't you heard? the US has a monopoly on ignoring the UN....all the other nations abide by their resolutions unilaterally!), then the only other possibility is that he made them himself.

Is that too much of a leap of logic?

Oh wait! I know! Saddam DID formerly have this stuff, but he used 100% of his stock and supply in the two unfortunate incidents mentioned above, and THAT's why the poor dictator has no more of them, right? Or maybe the aforementioned fairy godmother of weapons of mass destruction waved her magic wand after those two incidents and turned the rest of his stockpile into sand! Yes....two QUITE plausable possibilities!

All Saddam had to do was hand over proof of the destruction of the stuff we know he's got.

He had plenty of time to do that.

He did not.

Here's an example of how things went:

"Saddam, buddy...we KNOW you've got this stuff....you're not fooling anybody. Destroy it, or show us where it is and we'll destroy it."

"But I don't! Honest Abe! I swear!"

"Saddam....."

"Seriously guys, I promise I don't have anything!"

"Erm....what about these missiles with longer ranges than you're supposed to have?"

"Well I....um.....well there aren't too many of them!"

"You're not supposed to have even one."

"Ohhh....okay.....I'll get rid of them."

****Later*****

"Gotten rid of those missiles yet?"

"Missiles?"

"Yes....you know, the ones we told you to destroy."

"Ohhhh, THOSE missiles....well um....I put in the order for their destruction, yes."

"And have they been destroyed."

"Umm...we're working on it."

"Saddam....."

"Okay, okay, come with me and I'll show you the destruction of one of them."

And the response to this long, drawn out exchange:

BEHOLD! A shining new day in Iraq! Saddam enters a bold new era of cooperation and compliance!

Yeah.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Some things that people conveniently forget:

1) Saddam gassed his own people with the very chemical agents we are talking about.

2) Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran.

Yeah, and they did that in the 1980's, and againt people who could not gas them back.

All Saddam had to do was hand over proof of the destruction of the stuff we know he's got.

He had plenty of time to do that.

He did not.

I don't know what the psycology of the man is. It does still fall un the shoulders of those that backed this war for the purpose of "disarmement" to account for all the stuff they "were positive, had iron-clad proof" was there.

But I guess you have answered my question already Vel- even if nothing is found, you will not admit that the threat from iraq was not what you made it out to be. Thanks for the answer.

[Velociryx]

GePap: What does Kurdish inability to respond in kind have to do with the fact that Saddam HAD the goods to do it? Or, with the fact that he undoubtedly didn't use 100% of his supply in the effort (and therefore, would still have some left to use later)?

So yes.....the answer to your question is that the stuff is there. It's not a question of will we find it or won't we....it's a question of when.

-=Vel=-

[Edan]

Yeah, and they did that in the 1980's, and againt people who could not gas them back.

IIRC, Iran could and did gas them back (although, admittedly, not nearly as succesfully)

[GePap]

GePap: What does Kurdish inability to respond in kind have to do with the fact that Saddam HAD the goods to do it? Or, with the fact that he undoubtedly didn't use 100% of his supply in the effort (and therefore, would still have some left to use later)?

It tells us that he would not use them against somoene, I don;t know, like the US, who could respond with far greater force, menaing that if the only thing we had to worry about was the threat he possed with whatever ha had, he could be easily detered. It tells us that as far as the threat from Saddam's WND;s was concerned, deterence was a viable and successful strategy, and that henece, the UN process had put him in a box, even if he had any WMD's left.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


IIRC, Iran could and did gas them back (although, admittedly, not nearly as succesfully)

Iraq first used gas when Iran had none, so Iran had to develop its own. We forget, or many don't know, that by 1984 Iraq would have acceptred a negotiated peace, but Iran decided on regime change in Iraq, only it lacked the forces to do so successfully.