The Iraqi Saga: Remix

Many months have passed and the WMD have yet to be found. Before the Iraq invasion, the leaders of both US and UK gave the impression that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD and was ready to launch them at any given notice.

Yet, a few things remains unclear. Firstly, if that assertion was true, then by the time US forces set foot in Iraq, a number of states would have already been nuked by the 'dangerous and madman' Saddam Hussein.

Interestingly, the justification now has turned to more about liberating Iraqis from the Saddam's regime. Would such justification be acceptable prior the war, instead of WMD???

Take for example, North Korea, a country that had admitted to the world that it has embarked on nuclear research and has indicated that it possessed nuclear capabilities. Since N.Korea is part of the 'axis of evil' labelled by Mr. Bush, why hasn't he launch a military campaign against N.Korea?

The reason may be simple. Some militaristic article back in the 90s indicated that N.Korea ICBM(Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles) has far-reaching range and could cover almost all states in the US. With nuclear capacity, this proves more deadly to the US than it can imagine. Any aggression could result in the immediate launch of nuclear missiles. Currently, talks are held by various leaders, led by the US to a peaceful settlement with N.Korea.

Note the two different approaches adopted by the US. On one hand, Iraq, as claimed by US, to be a dangerous element with WMD yet they proceeded to invade it...it could very well mean that the US and UK had prior intelligence that Iraq would not be able to launch any nuclear missiles as it had none. On the other hand, N.Korea, who admittedly has nuclear capabilities, has not received any substantial threats from the West.

Let's ponder and reflect.

[ Last edited by WinterNights on 12-2-2004 at 10:00 PM ]

Debmey

Yes, let ponder and reflect upon this entire episode.

1. Iraq had WMD and have used them before on hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Kurds.
2. UN inspectors have found tons of WMD and materials to make WMD through inspections after the 1st gulf war. Much of these are still unaccounted for today.
3. UN inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in 2000 because the Iraqis were making their jobs impossible and even fired at them.
4. Ricin was passed on from Iraqis to terrorists who brought them to London.
5. Secret labs were found in Iraq, not made known to the IAEA; vials of biological agents were found in these labs.
6. Iraq has indeed violated UN resolution 141 time and again.
7. There are clear links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Given all the above, the burden of proof was for Iraq to prove that it has no WMD or programs to produce WMD,both of which they failed. It is not for the UN to paly a cat and mouse game with Saddam, giving him more time to manuveur his evil schemes.

So now the question is,why shld we give Iraq more time?

Where is the WMD? He was arrested after killing 1.7 million Muslims.

Muslims need to ponder & reflect some more.

peace

Hmmm, however, the points you have mentioned were Iraq's 'downfall' some two decades ago. If anybody could go and kick someone's butt now for something they did wrong a long time ago, then a case for war can be virtually built against other nations like Japan, Germany, N.Korea, Russia etc(from the WW2 era, Cold War, Korean War).

Iraq certainly got its poor butt kicked then by the US led invasion after Iraq decided to invade Kuwait. Yes, you are right to say that the burden of proof lies with Iraq but if you remember the pre-war situation, US was accepting nothing less than an admittance by Iraq that it did have WMD. That being the case, it was quite impossible for Iraq to prove anyhow.

Then again, how about the UN inspection team for WMD just before the war? US and UK gave the impression that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD....in other words, what they were saying is not that Iraq had 1 or 2 nuclear missiles and constantly shifting it around here and there; they were saying that Iraq has production plants where WMD were being produced and the weapons being stored, in other words, it could amount to over hundreds of missiles. However, being the madman everyone claims Saddam to be, it is strange that he never launch these alleged missiles when the US and UK invaded Iraq.

I don't think that Muslims, in general, would support Saddam on the basis that he is a Muslim but rather on the legitimacy of war itself. Saddam never cared about whether his enemies were Muslims or not, like when he invaded Kuwait and killed countless of his own people. To say Saddam=Islam would be factored out when Muslims say RC priests=Christianity and such bickering could continue ad infinitum.

Debmey

Like I said, the burden of proof is on Iraq, not on the UN to play a cat and mouse game. The anyhrax stock and other materials remians uncacounted for even today. That is good enough reason to invade Iraq and disarm Saddam and his men, not waste anymore time playing games with them. This will teach Muslims a good lesson not to play games with the US. It was a legitimate war.

The real problem is, Muslims see the world and Muslism verses non Muslims. Thats why they are against war in Iraq. We don't see Muslism anti war against Serbia even when it was truly illegitimate according to UN definitions.

Dembey...

Iraq had WMD and have used them before on hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Kurds

Yes. Iraq HAD WMDs years back. It doesn't mean Iraq still keep them. Moreover, the use of WMDs during Iran-Iraq war was in total watchful eyes of the US and Europe. It was LEGAL in the eyes of the Republicans that you worship. When Democrats introduced a legislation called The Prevention of Genocide Act 1988 to impose sanctions in response to the gassing in Halabja, the WMD to be exact, the Reps vetoed the Act. Since it was so soothing to the eyes of the Reps back then, why is it a heinous crimes 15 years later?

Much of these are still unaccounted for today

Many things are unaccounted for in this world. Surely, this is not a very good reason to invade a country plunging its people into misery and sacrificed the throats of many GIs in the desert causing even more sadness in this debacle. Hans Blix suggested Saddam could have been intentionally keeping his WMD option & mystery alive for security purposes since so many factions wants his death - both the Wests and Islamist fanatics. Blix said it is like putting out a sign saying "Beware of Dogs" but in reality no dogs (threats). Blix attribute this as miscalculated bluff. A bluff capitalised by a brutal Bush-regime to invade for some dishonest purposes...

Ricin was passed on from Iraqis to terrorists who brought them to London

What nonsense is this? Ricin expires after 5 years. Are the Iraqis clearing stocks?? The US have yet to prove credible relation of this information. Surely you can make such a crass conclusion by saying if Iraqis are involved surely it has to do with Saddam. Can I say the British shoe bomber Mr. Reid caught in the US was instructed by Tony Bliar? The first thing to do is to make that accurate connection not just based on some silly prejudiced perception! Since you're so clever, why don't you justify this on behalf of the US? I'm appalled how you made up your mind when the CIAs haven't even prove it right.

There are clear links between Iraq and Al Qaeda

That's a lot of stuff and nonsense! Count after me Deb, from April 2003 until now Feb 2004, 11 months now... we've not seen any terrorists schools, camps or playgrounds. CIA claimed Abu Nidal is there. But Abu Nidal had been expelled from Iraq in the 80s as part of an economic and political agreement with the US. Shalman Pak? WHere is he? I think you need some time to update yourself. Their credibility have been called into question...

Moreover, Saddam is they type of man Osama is trying to overthrow because Saddam is the most secular ruler in the Middle East! Saddam had been crushing Islamic fundamentalists for decades and they don't see eye-to-eye on many issues. Please tell us all the people on the board, how do you link AL Qaeda with Saddam??



I'm off.. chao.

Debmey

Yes. Iraq HAD WMDs years back. It doesn't mean Iraq still keep them. Moreover, the use of WMDs during Iran-Iraq war was in total watchful eyes of the US and Europe. It was LEGAL in the eyes of the Republicans that you worship. When Democrats introduced a legislation called The Prevention of Genocide Act 1988 to impose sanctions in response to the gassing in Halabja, the WMD to be exact, the Reps vetoed the Act. Since it was so soothing to the eyes of the Reps back then, why is it a heinous crimes 15 years later?

And Iraq has never shown that they have destroyed these weapons. They are still unaccounted for even today.
If they have destroyed them, why didn't they show it to the world?

Many things are unaccounted for in this world. Surely, this is not a very good reason to invade a country plunging its people into misery and sacrificed the throats of many GIs in the desert causing even more sadness in this debacle. Hans Blix suggested Saddam could have been intentionally keeping his WMD option & mystery alive for security purposes since so many factions wants his death - both the Wests and Islamist fanatics. Blix said it is like putting out a sign saying "Beware of Dogs" but in reality no dogs (threats). Blix attribute this as miscalculated bluff. A bluff capitalised by a brutal Bush-regime to invade for some dishonest purposes...

We are talking about WMD stiockpiles, tons of them, not toothpicks here.




  

What nonsense is this? Ricin expires after 5 years. Are the Iraqis clearing stocks?? The US have yet to prove credible relation of this information. Surely you can make such a crass conclusion by saying if Iraqis are involved surely it has to do with Saddam. Can I say the British shoe bomber Mr. Reid caught in the US was instructed by Tony Bliar? The first thing to do is to make that accurate connection not just based on some silly prejudiced perception! Since you're so clever, why don't you justify this on behalf of the US? I'm appalled how you made up your mind when the CIAs haven't even prove it right.

That means they must have produced fresh ricin.
Are you claiming that all this ricin came w/o Saddam's knowledge? Hahahahahahahaha.................

That's a lot of stuff and nonsense! Count after me Deb, from April 2003 until now Feb 2004, 11 months now... we've not seen any terrorists schools, camps or playgrounds. CIA claimed Abu Nidal is there. But Abu Nidal had been expelled from Iraq in the 80s as part of an economic and political agreement with the US. Shalman Pak? WHere is he? I think you need some time to update yourself. Their credibility have been called into question...

Al Qaeda members have been arrested in Iraq. In fact, they were involved in the battle at Nasariya, way back to the beginning of the war. Go ahead, deny all you want, it won't make any diff.

Moreover, Saddam is they type of man Osama is trying to overthrow because Saddam is the most secular ruler in the Middle East! Saddam had been crushing Islamic fundamentalists for decades and they don't see eye-to-eye on many issues. Please tell us all the people on the board, how do you link AL Qaeda with Saddam??

They work together against a common enemy, nothing starnge about that. They have been working together. Why stay blind?

You must be retarded.

If they have destroyed them, why didn't they show it to the world?

Already explained to you. Everyone can read and understand. Only you playing dumbey.

We are talking about WMD stiockpiles, tons of them, not toothpicks here

That sums up what a complete clot you are. WMD STOCKPILES eh?

They work together against a common enemy, nothing starnge about that. They have been working together. Why stay blind?

Explain it with source. Where's your proof? Say something verifiable.

I think today I have affirmed my opinion of you. You're sick. Not well. You've lost all credibility. Whatever you says are faeces blurp out of that dumb mouth. When proven wrong you evade with circumlocutory craps. I wonder how you grow up.

H猷L鰃頧

Why does no one account towards Russia, China, America & Israel itself ?
such hypocrete willing to stop nuke everyone but not himself

Debmey

Already explained to you. Everyone can read and understand. Only you playing dumbey.

No yu didn't, yu kept avoiding thsi question.
Why did they hide the destruction of WMD. And if this was not shown to you, how do you know they were destroyed?

  Quote:
We are talking about WMD stiockpiles, tons of them, not toothpicks here

That sums up what a complete clot you are. WMD STOCKPILES eh?

Yes sir, WMD stickpiles and materials to build WMD. You think those are toothpicks?

Explain it with source. Where's your proof? Say something verifiable.

See all these foreign terrorists bombing Iraqis now?

I think today I have affirmed my opinion of you. You're sick. Not well. You've lost all credibility. Whatever you says are faeces blurp out of that dumb mouth. When proven wrong you evade with circumlocutory craps. I wonder how you grow up.

You see, once yu are exposed and stuck, you turn to curse and insult.

peace & cheers

Healogix,

Russia, China, America & Israel itself ?

For those who already have it, we'll gradually come to mutual disarmament. Check on Russia and America. They've slashed, disarmed and destroyed thousands of nukes. It would not complete be destroyed though.

For those who sought them. We have to stop it. Stop it while they don't have it. Once they have it. There's nothing we can do. If America touches China, she will get bombed. There are some 13 ICBM pointing at America as we speak.

Yes, we do all condemn these countries who have nuke that are the root cause of all problems in the world. Especially Russian and China had been secretly selling nuke tech.

Dumbey,

Why did they hide the destruction of WMD. And if this was not shown to you, how do you know they were destroyed?

They did not fully account for it. Not hide. Don't mislead the public! I've replied earlier: Blix said it is like putting out a sign saying "Beware of Dogs" but in reality no dogs (threats). Blix attribute this as miscalculated bluff.

Yes sir, WMD stickpiles and materials to build WMD

Liar! David Kay, George Tenet, Bush, Blair... they've all said NOT found and MAY NOT be found at all. It is YOU lying that there are WMD stockpiles. You're not well. Go seek help!

See all these foreign terrorists bombing Iraqis now?

What utter baloney!!
These nosey parkers came in from the neighbouring countries. It was proven yesterday. Go BBC or CNN. They are there for political purposes. They do not want democratic government being installed. They want Islamic government. They also fight among themselves for political power. Stop misleading the public! It is either you're an uneducated failure or a complete daft Singalella man. Post your facts that these terrorists came in BEFORE the war please...

You see, once yu are exposed and stuck, you turn to curse and insult

Trying to turn around the table on me eh?? Do remember it was YOU who started throwing insults at me. My job is to EXPOSE your FILTH. Try expose me. Everyone on this board can be the judge... you're a LIAR.

Reprint of my point in the post above:-

Then again, how about the UN inspection team for WMD just before the war? US and UK gave the impression that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD....in other words, what they were saying is not that Iraq had 1 or 2 nuclear missiles and constantly shifting it around here and there; they were saying that Iraq has production plants where WMD were being produced and the weapons being stored, in other words, it could amount to over hundreds of missiles. However, being the madman everyone claims Saddam to be, it is strange that he never launch these alleged missiles when the US and UK invaded Iraq.

Basically, Saddam knew that he will not last long and that he will bound to be caught by the US and UK led forces. He was pushed into a desperate corner with his military either defecting or simply running away. As they say, desperate times leads to desperate measures and yet he never thought about using his alleged WMD arsenal.

In WW2, Japan was leading in its invasion and the US were basically put in that similar desperate situation. What did they do? They nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki which led promptly to Japan's surrender.

Think about it, madman with stockpiles and stockpiles of WMD being pushed into a desperate situation and he doesn't use them......

DARSITA

1. Iraq had WMD and have used them before on hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Kurds.

Back then YES .. now NO!

2. UN inspectors have found tons of WMD and materials to make WMD through inspections after the 1st gulf war. Much of these are still unaccounted for today

Who? Name please. And while you listing their names you can read this http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORL ... nirq.kay/index.html

''"My summary view, based on what I've seen, is we're very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons," he said on National Public Radio's "Weekend Edition." "I don't think they exist."

3. UN inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in 2000 because the Iraqis were making their jobs impossible and even fired at them.

What a lame arguement! Prove your statements with unbiased reports.

5. Secret labs were found in Iraq, not made known to the IAEA; vials of biological agents were found in these labs.

By whom? Chalabi? so why don't just show us the evidence like labs location perhaps.

has indeed violated UN resolution 141 time and again.

why don't we look at Israel's 36 year occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza? Why don't the U.S scold them for having hundreds of nuclear warheads? Why don't the US stop vetoing the whole world (35 times) in the UN when it comes to Israel's oppression of the Palestinians? Why don't the US replace the Israeli Occupation Forces with NATO and UN troops, if Israel claims that it occupies Palestine for "security reasons" (imagine the US starting to build and subsidise settlements for 200,000 Americans in Afghanistan, making 60% of the Afghan territory inaccessible to Afghanis and drawing 50% of the US water supply from Afghanistan - all for "security reasons" ) ?
Why did the US give Israel $10 billion each year(and even the usual aid is light years ahead of aid for anyone else, except Egypt which stands a close second)? And this is only one example. The US rulers are strangely choosing to hit in sequence the top oil reserves in the world...

7. There are clear links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Do you feel safer today? Do you think Afghanis and Iraqis are just going to forget the cynical assault by the most powerful country in the world against the weakest ones? If you do feel safer, was the price (not that we hear much about the suffering of the countries we bomb) worth it?

whatever reasons the US administration gave were all bogus - especially the legal ones - WMD's and terrorism.

[ Last edited by DARSITA on 13-2-2004 at 06:20 PM ]

Debmey

They did not fully account for it. Not hide. Don't mislead the public! I've replied earlier: Blix said it is like putting out a sign saying "Beware of Dogs" but in reality no dogs (threats). Blix attribute this as miscalculated bluff.

In that case, they have violated UN resoultion 1441. That calls for an invasion.

Liar! David Kay, George Tenet, Bush, Blair... they've all said NOT found and MAY NOT be found at all. It is YOU lying that there are WMD stockpiles. You're not well. Go seek help!

It may not be found. But that does not mean it wasn't there in the first place. You forgot to mention that David Kay found secret labs that were undeclared that contained vials of biological agents.

  Quote:
See all these foreign terrorists bombing Iraqis now?
What utter baloney!!
These nosey parkers came in from the neighbouring countries. It was proven yesterday. Go BBC or CNN. They are there for political purposes. They do not want democratic government being installed. They want Islamic government. They also fight among themselves for political power. Stop misleading the public! It is either you're an uneducated failure or a complete daft Singalella man. Post your facts that these terrorists came in BEFORE the war please...

Denial is no use. Saddam does have links to Al Qaeda. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Co ... 00/003/033jgqyi.asp

  Quote:
You see, once yu are exposed and stuck, you turn to curse and insult

Trying to turn around the table on me eh?? Do remember it was YOU who started throwing insults at me. My job is to EXPOSE your FILTH. Try expose me. Everyone on this board can be the judge... you're a LIAR.

No matter how hard yu cry or cried. the war is already over. Saddam has been removed. You can insult and curse all yu want out of your frustratuion but its useless.

cheers

In that case, they have violated UN resoultion 1441. That calls for an invasion.

Debmey,

I have pointed out in another thread that there are no legal merits to the invasion. Violation of UN resolutions DO NOT give rise to the option for military invasions.

No matter how hard yu cry or cried. the war is already over. Saddam has been removed. You can insult and curse all yu want out of your frustratuion but its useless.

I agree with this. Right now, efforts should be concentrated on the rebuilding of Iraq, to repair what damage the US and UK have done; to solve a continuing crisis in the never-seem-to-end Palestine vs. Israel situation.

The thing is, I'm not sure about the rest, but I feel that such practises by the US and UK opens out the entire issue of the use of force. The restraints have been broken and if not contained, anybody could fall victim to the US and UK. Imagine, what if tomorrow the following conversation takes place:-

US: We have sufficient evidence showing S'pore has links with Al-Qaeda and is producing WMD.
S'pore: HUH??
US: Intelligence reports that S'pore has been actively linked and have established ties with terrorist networks which have  been traced way back to the 70s.
S'pore: AH?? What proof....
US: Excuses...denials...lies...
S'pore: We never...why don't the UN send an inspection team over?
US: Again and again S'pore has been evading the issue and the longer we stall this, the more time we are giving to the terrorist nation to plot its evil scheme.

In fact, it can be applied to any nation in SEA but I'm using an example so remotely impossible yet it would be still justified in the eyes of the US to launch a military invasion. The example above is intended to be viewed in a light tone but illustrates the similar principle adopted by the US in its approach to the pre-invasion of Iraq.

Actually Debmey, the same vigour you are defending the US and UK invasion on Iraq could scare people, me included, in the similar way some Muslims defend the 'righteousness' of Osama, Abu Sayyaf etc terrorist actions on innocent civilians.

[ Last edited by WinterNights on 14-2-2004 at 08:19 AM ]

Debmey

Originally posted by WinterNights at 2004-2-14 08:00 AM:
In that case, they have violated UN resoultion 1441. That calls for an invasion.

Debmey,

I have pointed out in another thread that there are no legal merits to the invasion. Violation  ...

If that is the case, what is the purpose of Resolution 1441?

Debmey

I agree with this. Right now, efforts should be concentrated on the rebuilding of Iraq, to repair what damage the US and UK have done; to solve a continuing crisis in the never-seem-to-end Palestine vs. Israel situation.

The problem is, there are many people who are plain anti US and will grasp into anything to hit the US, even if it measn jeopardising the rebuilding of Iraq. These people actually don't give a damn about Afghans or Iraqis. You don't see them complain about Saddam when he created those mass graves nor do yu see themcomplaining about Sudan. They even suggest that US shld pull out immediately and let the Iraqis run themselves. Sounds noble but hypocrituical and disastrous. Even the Iraqis & their neighbours wouldn't want a civil war there.

The thing is, I'm not sure about the rest, but I feel that such practises by the US and UK opens out the entire issue of the use of force. The restraints have been broken and if not contained, anybody could fall victim to the US and UK. Imagine, what if tomorrow the following conversation takes place:-

US: We have sufficient evidence showing S'pore has links with Al-Qaeda and is producing WMD.
S'pore: HUH??
US: Intelligence reports that S'pore has been actively linked and have established ties with terrorist networks which have  been traced way back to the 70s.
S'pore: AH?? What proof....
US: Excuses...denials...lies...
S'pore: We never...why don't the UN send an inspection team over?
US: Again and again S'pore has been evading the issue and the longer we stall this, the more time we are giving to the terrorist nation to plot its evil scheme.

We have nothing to fear. US don't go to war for kicks. They don't place their soldiers in danger for nuts. Singapore is innnocent, we have nothing to fear. Only crooks need to fear and fear they must. If there is no credible deterent, yu will see a lot of rogue leaders playing games to destabilise the world.

Actually Debmey, the same vigour you are defending the US and UK invasion on Iraq could scare people, me included, in the similar way some Muslims defend the 'righteousness' of Osama, Abu Sayyaf etc terrorist actions on innocent civilians.

This is the right thing to do, these anti US hypocrites and their twisted agenda need to be exposed and addressed. I hate hypocrites.

Originally posted by Debmey at 2004-2-14 08:55 AM:
If that is the case, what is the purpose of Resolution 1441?

Debmey,

I have already explained in the previous thread that the use of force by States have to be examined under Art 2(4) and Art 51 of the UN Charter.

The purpose of a UN Resolution and the repercussions of violation is a matter entirely out of the scope of Art 2(4) and Art 51. For a State found to be in violation, the sanctions are strictly political and economical but not militarily.