quote:Originally posted by Veers: "F2: The Israeli resolutions were chapter 6, unenforced. The Iraqi resolutions were Chapter 7, intended to be enforced, with "serious consequences." "
--Weren't these resolutions not enforced because the US vetoed most of them? Just about any resolution condemning Israel is vetoed by Big Brother America.
No, they were not. They are extant and on the books, we did not veto them... although we have vetoed other, less-rational anti-Israel measures.
quote: "PN: *drools* Um... I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
F2: You thought this based upon a report from Hans Blix, who Iraq successfully duped in the 1980's, and whom they were very happy to have back again."
--So you believe Iraq has nuclear weapons?
No, I do not. But I do not base that opinion on the word of Often-Wrong Blix.
quote: "F2: They were able to launch those missiles, even if they weren't Scuds, into Kuwait now, weren't they? Kuwait, you simpleton, is an ALLY."
--Weren't these missiles launched from Southern Iraq, so they could hit Kuwait because they can only go a little more than 100 miles? Does 90-100 miles constitue long range?
Were they legal missiles? No? End of discussion.
quote: "F2: We (what you mean 'we,' paleface? I didn't )sold them to the enemy of our enemy. Welcome to the ugly, dirty 'real world.' Things have changed."
--So, as long as we sell them to an enemy of an enemy, it's OK?
Welcome to an ugly Cold-War-era legacy. The fact that one has made a mess does not abrogate the responsibility to clean it up.
quote: "F2: Not outside a few conspiracy-theory internet pages."
--Probably true, but we certainly knew about his build-up on their border, said it was none of our concern, and made the mother of all blunders when everyone predicted he would not invade Kuwait.
Undoubtedly. Bad intelligence, a miscommunication at best. This, however, is not actually relevant to the current situation.
quote: "F2: No. His reports up and to the end show clearly that Iraq was not cooperating in the manner in which it was supposed to. Plus, we've covered Blix's 'ability to uncover Iraqi programs' issues already."
--How? Didn't he say they were cooperating? Or, were they not cooperating in the manner the BUSH ADMINISTRATION wanted them to, not the UN?
They were not cooperating in the manner in which the UN resolution required them to do so. Go read it again. Pay special attention to these words: "currently accurate, full, and complete declaration", "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC�s or the IAEA�s choice," Iraq provided none of these things. The inspectors proved that their declaration was inaccurate and incomplete, and reported as such. Raed the whole thing here, and tell me if you can honestly believe that Iraq was complying with it fully and to the best of its ability.
quote: "F2: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. The evidence was to be presented to them. It was not."
--If their job is not to find weapons, why are they called "inspectors?" Why did they go around in white SUVs to search for weapons, then? Then why didn't we invade in December, after Iraq did not lay out their weapons on a table to the inspectors?
To answer your first question, they were not there to "search for weapons." They were there to receive the information and materials that Iraq was supposed to GIVE them, and to verify that it was correct and complete (which it was not, given that they did, in fact, find undeclared materials, and the Al-Samoud missiles, and the fact that they were NEVER provided with information concerning the final disposition of Iraq's known stockpiles of nerve agents and chemical weapons)
To answer your second question, because the rubber-kneed among us would not allow it. In an attempt to satisfy them, we gave Iraq yet more chances to cooperate, and the UN yet more chances to act like the body it claims to be. Both organizations, sadly, failed.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Intelligence mixup. Sure that makes sense. The CIA believed that they were there for....THE YEARLY CAMEL DARBY!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
