Following Iraq's bioweapons trail

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Civettone

That's not true Matt. You know as well as I do that the US has signed the UN Charter which requires the UN to give its consent to such a war. Also, Powell and Bush declared they would go through the UN Security Council so they definitely wanted that consent as it gives them legality like in 1991.

I don't think I was all too clear. Sure, there's the UN charter... but the "legality" of the whole deal was thrown out the window when the US told the UN to F itself. The UN couldn't do a thing other than protest. I don't think you can argue with that. The UN can govern the actions of a member nation ONLY if they allow them to, implicitly by giving up some aspects of their own sovereignty.

Originally Posted by Civettone

Sure Matt, I'm with you on this one. But why on earth all that bull on WMDs? That is the reason given by the US/UK. The humanitarian concept is all very well but you know as well as I do, that that's not what it's about. With all due respect for the US, they never cared that much for human tragedy as shown in Latin America, Africa or even Iraq when Saddam was still a good friend.
But like you said, it's slightly off-topic.

Kris

I can't explain why our gov't used the whole "wmd" angle as their just cause... but they did - at least publicly. I don't always agree with US foreign policy. However, bringing up US support of Iraq in the 80's does not help the present situation. Again - I never claimed the US had altruistic intent, but that doesn't mean that it's a defense against stopping a single injustice if you don't stop all.

[pbfoot]

He did have them 1991 what he did with them or how far along they were in developement I don't know . There was some indication of him possessing them in 2003 but I've never seen concrete evidence . Atropine injectors are not WMD or an indication of possessing them but indicates they were prepared for any eventuality such as Iran

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

He did have them 1991 what he did with them or how far along they were in developement I don't know . There was some indication of him possessing them in 2003 but I've never seen concrete evidence . Atropine injectors are not WMD or an indication of possessing them but indicates they were prepared for any eventuality such as Iran

You're right, atropine isn't NBC weapon... but would I stick myself with atropine unless I was in contact with a nerve agent... probably not... actually absolutely not...

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by mkloby

I don't think I was all too clear. Sure, there's the UN charter... but the "legality" of the whole deal was thrown out the window when the US told the UN to F itself.

No, it's not. You're talking about a lacking compliance mechanism though this has nothing to do with making it less legal. Just look at the notions of resolutions. They usually come without a compliance segment but if you read up on international law you'll soon read that these resolutions can still be legally binding (depending on the nature of the resolution, as some just contain a warming, etc).

The UN Charter is a part of international law. That's a fact.
http://www.lcnp.org/global/Iraqstatemt.3.pdf

I can't explain why our gov't used the whole "wmd" angle as their just cause... but they did - at least publicly. I don't always agree with US foreign policy. However, bringing up US support of Iraq in the 80's does not help the present situation.

I find it's a pity that they brought up WMDs. One can wonder what would have happened had they played the 'humanitarian' card.

Again - I never claimed the US had altruistic intent, but that doesn't mean that it's a defense against stopping a single injustice if you don't stop all.

I agree. I'm glad the sucker's gone. And every European leader is, that's why they're supporting the rebuild of Iraq. We all want the best for Iraq even though we opposed the war. May sound hypocrit but I think it's better than just being stubborn and not helping the Iraqi people.

There was some indication of him possessing them in 2003 but I've never seen concrete evidence .

There wasn't. One can say there was stuff unaccounted for and that not everything was destroyed. But it's clear that Saddam had no WMD capability anymore, especially because he wasn't able to produce any since the 90s. The stuff that can be found is very probably degraded and although probably still harmful - you don't want it in your coffee, you know? - no longer a WMD.
I have heard some stories of chemical suits and atropine injectors and old shells but so far these all appear to date from the 80s. Or am I forgetting some? Please point them out as I am not a walking inventory list.


To conclude, one can still assume that there were some WMDs left because not everything has been accounted for ,but can still pop up. But there is no more doubt that Saddam had an effective WMD capability. I personally don't see how anyone can disagree with that as Saddam didn't even use any.
It's also the conclusion of the US Iraq Survey Report with the Pentagon and the CIA behind it, the two institutions who were most desperate to find WMDs.

Kris

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by mkloby

You're right, atropine isn't NBC weapon... but would I stick myself with atropine unless I was in contact with a nerve agent... probably not... actually absolutely not...

if I remember my NBC it's harmless

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Civettone

No, it's not. You're talking about a lacking compliance mechanism though this has nothing to do with making it less legal. Just look at the notions of resolutions. They usually come without a compliance segment but if you read up on international law you'll soon read that these resolutions can still be legally binding (depending on the nature of the resolution, as some just contain a warming, etc).

The UN Charter is a part of international law. That's a fact.
http://www.lcnp.org/global/Iraqstatemt.3.pdf

We're just talking past each other... I'm not denying the "legal" foundation of the organization. My point is, however, what good is that when you can just tell the UN to shove it and do as you please. The UN has any effect of US policy only if the US consents. Tomorrow, the US can withdraw and become a hostile party to the UN, regardless of what the charter states or what has been signed. What is the UN going to do - wave a piece of paper? You're right, it does have to do with compliance. What good are laws when there's no way to enforce compliance? That's the reality of the UN.

Pb - If I remember my briefs on it, the whole purpose of saving the injectors is so that doses can be accounted for, so as to not administer an overdose accidentally. I believe the crap can be fatal if OD'd on...

[Civettone]

No arguing there...

But IIRC I brought it up as a reply to Hunter's post that Saddam did it to himself by not fully cooperating with the UN. But it's strange that the US should therefor take matters in their own hand.

It's like me having a conflict with my neighbour but willing to talk about it, while my big brother comes over to beat the crap out of him

Kris

[Maharg]

I don't know. But, Saddam had used them before. So I think the only reason they wern't used was the threat of what Big Brother would do to Iraq if he did.

[Civettone]

I feel enlightened...

Kris

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Civettone

It's like me having a conflict with my neighbour but willing to talk about it, while my big brother comes over to beat the crap out of him

Kris

What's wrong with that? My brother used to do that all the time!

[Civettone]

Kris

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Fair enough. But that's why you went for war, not to remove Saddam Hussein. That's the reason why so few countries supported the war because it was based on wrong reasons: Iraq did not have a WMD capability.

These facts come from official UNSCOM and IAEA reports.

Not going there.

Originally Posted by Civettone

I'm also disappointed Adler that you claim you've seen so much yet you don't know any details. You had me thinking those were still active WMDs but it could just as well have been degraded mustard gas. That my friend is no longer a WMD.

I claim nothing, I lie about nothing. I know what I have seen and what others have seen.

You call this lies and what people have seen as worth nothing? What have you done with your life? I dont believe a thing you say anymore either because it is just liberal bull...

Yeah now you have pissed me off. You chose your words. I had a lot of respect for you and actually rather enjoyed debating with you most of the time.

I have nothing further to say to you at all. You question my integrity (which is the one thing I think a man has besides his honor) and you are no longer worth talking to in my book. You have a good day. I am also disappointed in the fact that you think you fricken know everything when in reality you are... I will leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Civettone

Also your claim of those atropine injectors means nothing. You base huge conclusions on things which could well have dated from the 80s when we all know Saddam had WMDs.

Even if they were, not the point, he was not supposed to have them.

Originally Posted by Civettone

And you call me a liberal though you don't know a damn thing about my political stand or the party I vote for.

Kris

edit: fixed the quote, apology to Matt.

You show that to me in the fact that you dont know a damn thing about what is going on outside your safe little environment.

Good day Civettone. I have nothing further to say to you ever.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

He did have them 1991 what he did with them or how far along they were in developement I don't know . There was some indication of him possessing them in 2003 but I've never seen concrete evidence . Atropine injectors are not WMD or an indication of possessing them but indicates they were prepared for any eventuality such as Iran

Never said it was an NBC. Read the fricken post. I was describing things that were at the site...

[Matt308]

How to Win Friends and Influence People - The Dale Carnegie approach to establishing yourself in a forum.

[Civettone]

I said you were wrong and mistaking. I never called you a liar, never questioned your integrity.

It's true that I put words in your mouth when I think that's what you meant by other words. You do it too.

I also doubt you had much respect for me as you've ridiculized most of the stuff I said as if I know nothing but you do as you were in Iraq and I wasn't.

You have your opinion, I have mine. I don't see why you should get so upset over me disagreeing with yours.

Kris