Friday, March 10, 2006

The Dubai Ports fallout: Everybody Loses!

The aftermath of the Dubai ports brouhaha might have done more damage between the Middle East and The United States in a bigger way than Osama Bin Laden could have ever hoped for.

Thanks to the Xenophobic and opportunistic whores over at the Democratic Party, you now have a valuable ally to the war on terror and economic powerhouse: The UAE, pissed off at the overall reaction. So that's one more number to cross off in the little black book whenever trouble arises.

The American business community will also suffer. Boeing, whose contracts with UAE firms number in the Billions of dollars, sure as hell won't be receiving the red carpet treatment whenever they land in Dubai to bid on the Multi-Billion dollar contracts.

The Arab moderates are now hearing the old "I TOLD YOU SO!" cries from the fundamentalists. Who were preaching over and over about America's so-called "racism", "Xenophobia" and "Anti-Muslim" nature in their sermons during the noon prayers.

The Arab business community (the one Mid-East ally the US government could not afford to loose in the war on terror) is now disgusted. And isn't encouraged at increasing commerce with the United States. Business leaders are blasting away the U.S. in a way which would rival the Mullahs (not a good sign).

Arab Americans, are disgusted with the Democrats and the Republicans, being made to believe that their ethnicity alone is a threat to their nation. Even decorated Arab-American military officers such as Gen. John Abizaid are upset at the fallout.

"I'm very dismayed by the emotional responses that some people have put on the table here in the United States that really comes down to Arab and Muslim bashing,'' Abizaid said at a Capitol Hill meeting with senators.


And to top it all off, we learn that in Long Beach, the port is being controlled by a state-owned Chinese company (H.T Daimnation). But of course, we never really heard the outcries when THAT deal occured.

Disgusting. Absolutly shameful.

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd be ashamed to be a pro-American.

To top it all off, all of this won't do DICK to improve security at the U.S. ports.

49 Comments:

At Friday, 10 March, 2006, Anonymous Jim said...

You mean "loses" not "looses." The first means "fails to win," the second "release" or "sloppy" as cmpared to "tight."

 
At Friday, 10 March, 2006, Blogger WarHammer said...

Aside from your first comment lesson in Grammer 101.

Your truths and loyalties hearten me, but western fear and confusion over who can be believed and trusted, as opposed to who can be decieved by those who pose as moderates, but harbour malice in their hearts are underminding the true friendship of us all, who believe in freedom and dignity of our common brotherhood.

You have given cause to all, to have change of heart.

 
At Friday, 10 March, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"but western fear and confusion over who can be believed and trusted"

Uhh yeah. Lets not trust "the Arab". Let us base our fear, confusion, and trust in a person's GENETICS.

WOW.
Warhammer, you are retarded.

-Ibn

 
At Friday, 10 March, 2006, Blogger The Arabian Knight said...

Warhammer, the reaction of the Dubai ports deal does more harm to Arab Moderates than good. Fears about all this was based on sickening case of political oppotunism by the Democrats combined with a anti-arab Xenophobic attitude many U.S lawmakers have concerning this deal. Had they made the same kind of fuss when China brought the the Long Beach Port, THEN it would probably have been a principaled stand.

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

you guys are so full of it, it's unbelievable

first off, the american neo-cons stirred the conservative base into a anti muslim/arab frenzy for support to attack/invade/occupy iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11

then the uae port deal comes to light, and the american public is outraged, not because the uae is arab/muslim nation, noooooooooo it's because americans have been robbed of there civil liberties (patriot act) in this so called war on terror, and come to find out that uae as Lou Dobbs tonight on CNN highlights layed out concerns over port deal

*
Money for 9/11
*
Al Queada bank account
*
Does not recognize Israel
*
Nuclear shipment to Iran, North Korea and Lybia

and as far has china is concerned , of course the americans should have been up in arms about that deal as well, but it's a little to late to do something about that isn't it!

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger Shameer Ravji said...

"you guys are so full of it, it's unbelievable"

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black jacobin?

"Thanks to the Xenophobic and opportunistic whores over at the Democratic Party, you now have a valuable ally to the war on terror and economic powerhouse: The UAE, pissed off at the overall reaction. So that's one more number to cross off in the little black book whenever trouble arises."

Don't forget all the Republicans who were acting just as disgraceful as the Democrats.

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

Shameer Ravji

i'm not sure what your point is,

this port deal has nothing to do with it being a muslim/arab country

it has to do with the uae having direct ties to terrorism and 9/11
-the uae funded 9/11
-the uae had an Al Queada bank account
-the uae Does not recognize Israel
-the uae have made Nuclear shipment to Iran, North Korea and Lybia

how someone can spin this and make the democrates look like they are helping the terrorist for self interest in bringing down george bush is beyond me, both the conservative and democrates have made this an issue because of the national security implication

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger The Arabian Knight said...

"Don't forget all the Republicans who were acting just as disgraceful as the Democrats."

That's true. Very very true. But the whole issue became public when Chuck Schumer (D-NY) broke it to the press. More democrats joined in, eventually the republicans had to jump abroad the bandwagin (its an election year). So in other words, this was kicked off by the Dems, and then snowballed with the Republicans.

Jacobin:


it has to do with the uae having direct ties to terrorism and 9/11
-the uae funded 9/11

(Funded 9/11? Get real, there was no evidence of any state behind 9/11 other than the Taliban regime that was harboring Al-Qaeda)

-the uae had an Al Queada bank account

(Yes, and so did Germany, and so did the US, and so did Italy, Al Qaeda had dummy coorporations and bank accounts worldwide, not just in the UAE, it still doesn't give any indication of state involvement).

-the uae Does not recognize Israel

(True, but if were going to use that logic then I expect to see Congress tell the Saudis to withdraw their Multi-Billion dollar investments in the U.S economy. They do that, I'll back off from my criticisms)

-the uae have made Nuclear shipment to Iran, North Korea and Lybia

(???? Care to provide evidence?)

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger Shameer Ravji said...

How have American civil rights been robbed as a result of the Patriot Act?

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

"the american neo-cons stirred the conservative base into a anti muslim/arab frenzy for support to attack/invade/occupy iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11"

Neo "Arabs are just as capable of democracy as we are" cons stirred the "conservative base" (i.e. me) into a "anti muslim/arab frenzy"?

I must say I have never had as many Arab and Muslim friends as I have now since I became more interested in the wider conflict and learned that some, perhaps many, Arabs are just like me.

Your idea that neo-cons wanted to attack Iraq (and liberate millions of Muslims) because of their hatred for Muslims is silly enough, but to use this event to "prove" the xenophobia of neo-cons is really ridiculous.

After all, it is neo-cons like George Bush who insist that Arab companies are just like British or Chinese companies and can be trusted, while mostly Democrats (and certainly not neo-cons) disagree.

It's the usual way, I suppose. The left shows their xenophobia and racism and then accuses the right of same.


Yes, the UAE do not recognise Israel. But a) I don't think it's relevant and b) I hardly believe that it is the UAE business community who are strongly behind that position. Business people usually try to avoid ideological politics and many greedy people are known to co-operate even with Jews.

I take it that Arab business people are greedy, don't care for Arab causes, and would gladly make deals with satan to make some extra money.

In other words, they are people we can work with.


Their being Arab or Muslim doesn't create any extra danger. (Their being business people might.)

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

How have American civil rights been robbed as a result of the Patriot Act?

are you for real?

http://www.aclunc.org/911/scorecard.html

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

so republicans jumped on the dems band wagon because of its an election year, so you are saying the repubs don't care about national security, they just care about being reelected

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

(Funded 9/11? Get real, there was no evidence of any state behind 9/11 other than the Taliban regime that was harboring Al-Qaeda)

my bad, according to the FBI, money was only transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system

my bad again, after 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts

oh, but let them take over american ports, that just good business

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

cons stirred the "conservative base" (i.e. me) into a "anti muslim/arab frenzy"?

Nearly 75 percent of Muslim Americans either know someone who has or have themselves experienced an act of anti-Muslim discrimination, harassment, verbal abuse or physical attack since September 11

Americans Suspicious of Muslims, Believe Islam Causes Terrorism

Only 40 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Islamic religion according to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

The nationwide survey of more than 2,000 adults, also found that 46 percent of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its followers. In addition, the poll found that 42 percent of Americans say that most Muslims around the world are anti-American.

The fact that the administration's disinformation campaign was entirely successful is evidenced by an October 2004, Harris Poll, taken three weeks before the last presidential election, which reported that 62% of all voters, and 84% of those planning to vote for Bush, still believed that Saddam had ''strong links" to Al Qaeda, and that 41% of all voters, and 52% of Bush backers, believed that Saddam had ''helped plan and support the hijackers" who had attacked the country on 9/11.

As we now know, the basis for these allegations were false but the saddest part of the situation is that many Americans are just now beginning to realize that Bush knew the stories were false for more than a year when he cited them as justification for taking the country to war.

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

It's the usual way, I suppose. The left shows their xenophobia and racism and then accuses the right of same.

you know keep playing that political football, pea brain. one day you wil realize that the dems vs the repubs is nothing more than WWE wrestling, it's all staged, but you see, instead of focusing on the real issue "how can the united states government hand over our ports to a state owned company with ties to al queada and terrorism" to a argument of , oh yeah the dems are racist and the repubs just want to be reelected man, yeah that's it.

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

Your idea that neo-cons wanted to attack Iraq (and liberate millions of Muslims) because of their hatred for Muslims is silly enough, but to use this event to "prove" the xenophobia of neo-cons is really ridiculous.

what's silly is people like you that can't think for themselves and repeat the fox news talking points, you actualy believe that the neo-cons wanted liberate millions of Muslims in iraq? hahahaha thats funny, what about WMD'S oh, yeah they were destroyed after the first gulf war, saddam is a bad man, who helped put him in power in the 70's via a CIA coup d'etat, what about supporting saddam during the iran-iraq wars? remember oliver north and the iran contra affair? what about dunald rumsfeld meeting with saddam even after saddam gassed the kurds? why is saddam on trial in bagdad today and not at the international court? he's on trial not for gassing the kurds, not for war crimes against iran, nope, he's on trial because 148 people conspired to assassinate him!what a farce. and how many thousand of iraqi's have been killed, tortured (abu graib)raped because the neo-cons wanted liberate millions of Muslims in iraq?

you guys are hopeless

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

After all, it is neo-cons like George Bush who insist that Arab companies are just like British or Chinese companies and can be trusted, while mostly Democrats (and certainly not neo-cons) disagree.

again neo-con fox news talking spin machuine, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UAE BEING AN ARAB COUNTRY, IT'S BECAUSE OF THERE TIES with TERRORISM including bin laden which is still on the loose and al queada. IN CASE YOU FORGOT THE AMERICANS ARE AT WAR AGAINST TERROR, SUPPOSIDLY A WAR THAT WILL LAST FOR DECADES, and people like you just want to hand over the ports, a strategic point of entry,

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

"what's silly is people like you that can't think for themselves and repeat the fox news talking points,"

I don;t have a television. And I am not in the US. I have never ever in my life even watched Fox, or news on Fox.


"you actualy believe that the neo-cons wanted liberate millions of Muslims in iraq?"

Yes. What reasons do you have to believe that this is not the case? Can you read our neo-con minds?


"hahahaha thats funny, what about WMD'S oh, yeah they were destroyed after the first gulf war,"

So why didn't the UN know that? How come you know that? And if you did know, why didn't you tell the UN and the inspectors? I believe you know nothing about the whole WMD episode.


"saddam is a bad man, who helped put him in power in the 70's via a CIA coup d'etat, what about supporting saddam during the iran-iraq wars? remember oliver north and the iran contra affair?"

Yes, that affair was about supporting Iran, you idiot.


"why is saddam on trial in bagdad today and not at the international court?"

I assume it's for the same reason that the UN didn't care for removing him from power.


"he's on trial not for gassing the kurds, not for war crimes against iran, nope, he's on trial because 148 people conspired to assassinate him!what a farce.

He's on trial for KILLING these people, not because they conspired to assassinate him. Perhaps simply avoiding Fox is not enough when you have no other means of learning about current events after all?

He is on trial for ONE of his crimes now. Nobody said that he didn't commit the others or that he would not be on trial for them.


"and how many thousand of iraqi's have been killed, tortured (abu graib)raped because the neo-cons wanted liberate millions of Muslims in iraq?"

I don't know. Tell me. How many thousands of Iraqis have been killed, tortured, and raped by the Americans?

I know that hundreds of thousands died because of Saddam, the pictures of the mass graves are self-evident. I know that Abu Ghraib has been considerably more humane since the invasion (because I have seen pictures from the old Abu Ghraib under Saddam as well). And I know that terrorists have killed several thousands Iraqis since the invasion (which constitutes a drop from the several ten thousand Saddam killed every year).

What do you know?


"IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UAE BEING AN ARAB COUNTRY, IT'S BECAUSE OF THERE TIES with TERRORISM including bin laden which is still on the loose and al queada."

So what exactly are the ties between the UAE and Al-Qaeda?


"IN CASE YOU FORGOT THE AMERICANS ARE AT WAR AGAINST TERROR, SUPPOSIDLY A WAR THAT WILL LAST FOR DECADES, and people like you just want to hand over the ports, a strategic point of entry,"

Hand over to who? Why and how are Arab businesses "them"? I don't get it. For me, evil and racist neo-con that I am, an Arab business is the same as an American business. I don't see why the one would have built-in ties to Al-Qaeda just because they are Arabs. Perhaps you know more about these alleged ties. Perhaps you would care to tell the CIA?


For somebody who accuses others of not thinking for themselves, you seem to be repeating a lot of mindless slogans. Let's hear you back up a few of them.

I particularly want to hear about the following:

1. Your proof that Iraq had no WMDs any more in 1991 and how come you knew and the UN did not.

2. Your sources for the information that thousands of Iraqis were killed, tortured, and raped after the invasion, presumably by the invaders(?).

3. Your reason to believe that the UAE and UAE business have close enough links to Al-Qaeda to be considered part of the enemy and why that belief has nothing to do with the fact that they Arabs or Muslims.


Personally, I, an evil racist neo-con, no doubts about that, believe that an Arab company from the UAE, however much I despise the country, has no more intention to support Islamic terrorism in the US than the Chinese companies that run other harbour terminals have to support a communist revolution in north-America. It doesn't work like that.

And I have seen pictures of the mass graves in Iraq, reports of the Ba'ath torture machine, and pictures of gased Kurds. Believe me, when you actually know about these things, you will see things differently.

The pictures of the mass graves have been the worst thing I saw since I read "Der Gelbe Stern".

http://www.massgraves.info/

The Iraqis will have a lot of fighting to do until they reach the levels of violence that had to endure before the invasion.

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger The Arabian Knight said...

Andrew

They guy's nuts. Let him be.

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

Yes. What reasons do you have to believe that this is not the case? Can you read our neo-con minds?

yes i can red there minds, in fact they wrote a book called "project for a new american century"
have you heard of this, probably not, i suggest you read it!

So why didn't the UN know that? How come you know that? And if you did know, why didn't you tell the UN and the inspectors? I believe you know nothing about the whole WMD episode.

in fact the u.n inspectors did know that, most of the world knew that why do you think only a hand full of nations make up the coalition of the bribed the u.s. and britain. research it for yourself before you make wild accusations about me. after gulf war 1 the un inspectors destroyed the wmd's and we're in iraq up until 1998 until the u.s and britain kicked them out to ressume bombing campaigns, that leaves saddam a window of oppurtinity to reconstitute his weapons program of about 4 years (1999 - 2003) under no fly zones, heavy surveillance of satelites and crippling sanctions, highly unlikly, and google "scott ritter" the top un inspector for more info

"saddam is a bad man, who helped put him in power in the 70's via a CIA coup d'etat, what about supporting saddam during the iran-iraq wars? remember oliver north and the iran contra affair?"

Yes, that affair was about supporting Iran, you idiot. exactly so sherlock and you trust the american government, you are the idiot

He is on trial for ONE of his crimes now. Nobody said that he didn't commit the others or that he would not be on trial for them.

you obviuosly do not know much about the court process, he will never be held accountable for gassing the kurds or the iranians, because that would implicate the americains (iran-contra) and wmd's were sold to iraq by none other than the united states government.

I don't know. Tell me. How many thousands of Iraqis have been killed, tortured, and raped by the Americans?

you don't have a t.v. so just google it dumbass, you'll find out

I know that hundreds of thousands died because of Saddam, the pictures of the mass graves are self-evident. I know that Abu Ghraib has been considerably more humane since the invasion (because I have seen pictures from the old Abu Ghraib under Saddam as well). And I know that terrorists have killed several thousands Iraqis since the invasion (which constitutes a drop from the several ten thousand Saddam killed every year).

right again sherlock, so why was the u.s buddy buddy with saddam up until 1991?

So what exactly are the ties between the UAE and Al-Qaeda? you really are an idiot -according to the FBI, money was only transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system, after 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts

Hand over to who? Why and how are Arab businesses "them"? I don't get it. For me, evil and racist neo-con that I am, an Arab business is the same as an American business.
have you been following the port deal at all, the uae does have tie to al queada and bin laden thats a fact according to the fbi,

I don't see why the one would have built-in ties to Al-Qaeda just because they are Arabs.

i never said they did just because they were arab, reread my post dumbass, they do have ties with al queada and osama bin laden and they do happen to be arabs thats just the facts

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

The Arabian Knight said...

Andrew

They guy's nuts. Let him be.

what are you afraid Arabian Knight, that he might learn something on is own, not because i said it, but because he will research it on his own, and start to question authority, instead of accepting everything the government says to be true?

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

"in fact the u.n inspectors did know that, most of the world knew that why do you think only a hand full of nations make up the coalition of the bribed the u.s. and britain. research it for yourself before you make wild accusations about me. after gulf war 1 the un inspectors destroyed the wmd's"

It's not a wild accusation. You are simply wrong.

The inspectors were never meant to destroy the weapons and they never did destroy them either. They were supposed to report if Saddam had destroyed Iraq's WMDs, and they consistently reported that he had not.

Research it for yourself. One of us is right. If you actually read the inspectors' reports, you will find that it is I.


"you don't have a t.v. so just google it dumbass, you'll find out"

I did Google. I did find out. That's why I know that you are talking nonsense. But feel free to provide your sources.


"why was the u.s buddy buddy with saddam up until 1991?"

It's very simply. They weren't. If you actually look up information on Iraq's weapons deals, you will find that the US and UK had very little to do with Iraq in the 1980s. That's why Saddam used Russian weapons, if you have ever wondered.

Go on, look it up. Wikipedia is your friend. And so is SIPRI.


"i never said they did just because they were arab, reread my post dumbass, they do have ties with al queada and osama bin laden and they do happen to be arabs thats just the facts"

I read your post. You didn't say what ties they have and you still don't.


I know you won't back up your allegations with facts or sources, but I can certanly repeat my questions and give you a chance to change my perception:


1. Your proof that Iraq had no WMDs any more in 1991 and how come you knew and the UN did not.

(So far you have merely stated that the inspectors destroyed the WMDs in 1991, which I know is wrong. So I'm afraid you will have to give me a source, if you can. I doubt you will and I doubt you can. But you might be looking hysterically.)


2. Your sources for the information that thousands of Iraqis were killed, tortured, and raped after the invasion, presumably by the invaders(?).

(Again you repeated your claim without a source, except "just google it dumbass". I begin to believe that you are not particularly able to find information.)


3. Your reason to believe that the UAE and UAE business have close enough links to Al-Qaeda to be considered part of the enemy and why that belief has nothing to do with the fact that they Arabs or Muslims.

(You have again simply repeated your accusations against the UAE company in question. Where's the backup? Are you often involved in debates among people where claims are valid arguments and you need not point to a source?)


"what are you afraid Arabian Knight, that he might learn something on is own, not because i said it, but because he will research it on his own, and start to question authority, instead of accepting everything the government says to be true?"

Given that you just repeat claims and cannot point to any sources, that statement is particularly ironic, don't you think?

If you want to talk about starting to question authority, start whith whatever "authority" told you what you know and ask them why they gave you no sources you can fall back on when questioned. Should be interesting to find out what that authority's attitude towards sources is.

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

I have to say that it doesn't surprise me that somebody who doesn't know the relevant history between UNSCOM and Iraq would disagree with me about the invasion of Iraq.

What does surprise me is how people can have a strong opinion about the issue yet never cared to actually read UNSCOM reports, which did, of course, not say that Iraq's WMD's had been destroyed in 1992.

If one does read the reports, as I am sure UN bureaucrats have, one does recognise the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security.

Iraq, of course, repeatedly obstructed access to sites designated by UNSCOM, failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with weapons inspectors and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998.

How any sane person could know these facts and then argue that the inspectors, the same inspectors that have consistently reported that Iraq had not provided proof that its WMD's had been destroyed, actually destroyed Ira's WMD's in 1991, I cannot even begin to imagine.

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

wmd's, iraq and the un inspectors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0912-02.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2247600.stm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/ritter.iraq/

uae and al queada
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/64126.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060308-122910-3253r.htm
ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11522484/
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8216.shtml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1585336/posts

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

Wikipedia is my friend!

The report found that "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."

UNSCOM encountered various difficulties and a lack of cooperation by the Iraqi government. In 1998, UNSCOM was withdrawn at the request of the United States before Operation Desert Fox. Despite this, UNSCOM's own estimate was that 90-95% of Iraqi WMD's had been successfully destroyed before its 1998 withdrawal. After that Iraq remained without any outside weapons inspectors for five years. During this time speculations arose that Iraq had actively resumed its WMD programmes. In particular, various figures in the George W. Bush administration as well as Congress went so far as to express concern about nuclear weapons:

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." —Dick Cheney, Vice President, Meet The Press, March 16, 2003 --a total lie--

"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) - Congressional Record, October 9, 2002 --where is the proof of such allegations, a total lie--

In 1980 the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency filed a report asserting that Iraq had been actively acquiring chemical weapons capacities for several years. [Subsequent events proved that this estimate was very likely correct.]

# In 1982 Iraqi forces reportedly started deploying chemical weapons against Iranian troops. In 1983 the use was reportedly greatly increased.
# In 1982 the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the U.S. State Department's list of countries sponsoring terrorism. This opened the gate to U.S. trade and support of Iraq during the war with Iran. In 1983 the Reagan administration secretly administered the channelling of U.S. aid to Iraq, after special envoy Donald Rumsfeld helped formally reestablish relations

The Washington Post reported that in 1984 the CIA secretly started feeding intelligence to the Iraqi army. This included assistance in targeting chemical weapons strikes. The same year it was confirmed beyond doubt by European doctors and U.N. expert missions that Iraq was employing chemical weapons against the Iranians.

Despite this the Reagan administration re-established full diplomatic ties with Iraq on 26 November the same year and continued supplying Iraq with intelligence and equipment.

Despite the removal of Saddam and his regime by American forces, there is deep resentment and anger in Iran that it was Western companies (West Germany, France, US) that helped Iraq develop its chemical weapons arsenal in the first place and that the world did nothing to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons throughout the war.

, after more than seven years of inspections, Iraq charged that the commission was a cover for US espionage and refused UNSCOM access to certain sites like Baath Party headquarters [8]. Although Ekéus has said that he resisted attempts at such espionage, many allegations have since been made against the agency commission under Butler [9], charges which Butler has denied.

Note: Iraq's allegations of spying were later confirmed

Oddly enough in January 2006, the New York Times revealed the existence of a memo stating that the suggestion of uranium being sold (one of the major claims) was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles. The memo, dated March 4, 2002, was distributed at senior levels by the office of former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

In {{Bush-Blair memo|another leaked memo]] by BBC and The Guardian, George Bush told Tony Blair on 31 January 2003 that a war would proceed whether or not WMDs would be found or a second UN resolution would be passed.

Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several reported finds of chemical weapons were announced. During the invasion itself, there were half a dozen incidents in which the US military announced that it had found chemical weapons. All of these claims were based on field reports, and were later retracted.

what more do you need?

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger Shameer Ravji said...

"again neo-con fox news talking spin machuine"

And your Michael Moore/Al-Jazeera/Al Franken/Air(head) America/Barbara Streisand talking points are any better?

As for Wikipedia, anyone can go on there and start changing and manipulating the information on there.

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

And your Michael Moore/Al-Jazeera/Al Franken/Air(head) America/Barbara Streisand talking points are any better?

never quoted any of these people you mentioned above, not one time!

it seems to me you both will listen to and believe george bush or harper as if they are the law, then when some democrat or liberal is in power you'll dismiss everything they say just because there liberal or democrats, all in all missing the real issue, that is that both parties are controlled and it's all WWE wrestling

you want one more dot, for you to be able to connect later on about it being staged, google w199i into the search engine, read about it, it's an executive order, both clinton and bush signed it, and what it does is threaten anybody in the fbi to stop going after osama bin laden or else they will be charged and prosecuted, why would both clinton and bush sign such an order?don't believe me look it up

 
At Saturday, 11 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

here's a BBC NEWSNIGHT video covering w199i
the BBC is a british NEWS channel highly reputable news source i think you'll agree on that
it's the 3rd link from the top, click and a video will play

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=12165

 
At Sunday, 12 March, 2006, Blogger eugene plawiuk said...

You forgot the key to the defeat of Bush on this issue was not the Democrats but the "the Xenophobic and opportunistic whores" in the Republican Congress and Senate. But hey go ahead blame the Democrats or give em credit. The truth is and was that this was a Republican move against the White House.

 
At Sunday, 12 March, 2006, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

"Wikipedia is my friend!"

And you didn't even notice that none of the sources you refer to confirm your claim that the inspectors destroyed the weapons in 1991?

Pathetic!

All of what you list I already knew. My issue was with your claims, not with the facts. You made a few claims, and you still haven't backed them up.

I ask again: where exactly did you hear that the inspectors destroyed the weapons after the Kuwait war?

It's good to see that you looked up many resources. Now go and read them. I believe you will find that the inspectors did not, in fact, destroy Iraq's WMDs after Gulf War 2 (Gulf War 1 was Iraq vs. Iran).

As for the inspectors not finding evidence of WMDs; if you had followed the news, you would knot that they didn't have to. Iraq was supposed to prove that it had no WMDs any more, and you will notice that the inspectors kept announcing two things: that Iraq did not provide all the documentation they needed and that Iraq refused to co-operate until Anglo-American troops were at Iraq's borders.

There are so many things you don't know about this subject, it's quite hopeless. And you keep accusing others of ignorance. The difference is that YOU assume that I lack knowledge, whereas _I_ know that you said things that are wrong and that you cannot back up.

 
At Sunday, 12 March, 2006, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

BTW the BBC is not a "highly reputable news channel". They made so many mistakes, it's laughable.

Fo example, they keep referring to Muqtada Al-Sadr as a cleric, even though some further investigation easily shows that he never officially became a Shi'ite cleric (as opposed to Al-Sistani, who really is a cleric).

The BBC also happily reported that one of the Danish Muhammed cartoons displayed Muhammed as a pig, and it later turned out that that "cartoon" was in reality a picture of a Frenchman with a funny nose.

I am sorry, but a "reputable news channel" will have to do better. SOME research could really help, but the BBC are not doing it. How come bloggers find out about that stuff? Is it because bloggers are inherently superior to British journalists? I think it's because the BBC is not, in fact, a good news source.

 
At Sunday, 12 March, 2006, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

Here is a series of pictures describing Saddam's use of WMDs (poison gas in this case) against Kurds:

http://www.massgraves.info/halapja/

Where is your UN source that says that these WMDs (the poison gas) have been destroyed? I don't want a UN or other source that says that no evidence was found for the WMDs to still be around, I want a source specifically for your claim that the WMDs were destroyed. I simply want you back up the statement you made.

I don't want to be told how ignorant I am for not simply believing you and I don't want to be told that Saddam's WMD are obviously destroyed or have never existed, I merely want to know your source for your claim that the WMDs have been destroyed, by the inspectors or otherwise.

Good luck.

(I would be willing to bet that I will get either no answer or another hint how stupid I am for not believing what I read without checking or another collection of sources that DO NOT say that the WMDs have been destroyed. Or I will get a pointer to some left-wing site that is not the UN but whose claims about what the UN said or did I should give more credence than the UN's own. We'll see.)

 
At Sunday, 12 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

I ask again: where exactly did you hear that the inspectors destroyed the weapons after the Kuwait war?

In 1998, UNSCOM was withdrawn at the request of the United States before Operation Desert Fox. Despite this, UNSCOM's own estimate was that 90-95% of Iraqi WMD's had been successfully destroyed before its 1998 withdrawal

scott ritter the chif weapons inspector saud that thremaining 5% could have been destroyed by the iraqis, but it was impossible to prove because they could have really destroyed them, thus how can you show the americans the proof if indeed it was destroyed?

but the possibility that some weapons (5% not accounted for)) existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability." therefore saddam was not a threat

 
At Sunday, 12 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

i haven't heard your comment on w199i
it doesn't matter if the source for the video was the BBC
w199i is an official presidential executive order that threaten's anybody in the fbi to stop going after osama bin laden or else they will be charged and prosecuted, why would both clinton and bush sign such an order if they truly wanted to capture bin laden?

 
At Sunday, 12 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

I ask again: where exactly did you hear that the inspectors destroyed the weapons after the Kuwait war?

i believe chief weapons inpspector scott ritter when he says "Scott Ritter's assertion that Iraq had been 90-95% disarmed"


i believe so-called "lefty sites" when they quote UNSCOM "n 1998, UNSCOM was withdrawn at the request of the United States before Operation Desert Fox. Despite this, UNSCOM's own estimate was that 90-95% of Iraqi WMD's had been successfully destroyed before its 1998 withdrawal" that is after the kuwait war isn't it?

i believe so-called mainstream news and embedded reports that say and continue to say "the u.s military has not found any wmd in iraq"

this is a fact saddam never reconstituted his nuclear program, remember this "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." —Dick Cheney, Vice President, Meet The Press, March 16, 2003 --a total lie--

 
At Sunday, 12 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

more proof that iraq had no wmd's

Appearing on Meet the Press, Colin Powell acknowledged that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons. That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. (Remember the drawings he displayed.) Yet Powell said on MTP, "it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading." Powell did not spell it out, but the main source for this claim was an engineer linked to the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, who is now part of the Iraqi Governing Council.

Powell noted that he was "comfortable at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community." In other words, the CIA was scammed by Chalabi's outfit, and it never caught on.

 
At Sunday, 12 March, 2006, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

"In 1998, UNSCOM was withdrawn at the request of the United States before Operation Desert Fox."

Not quite:

Operation Desert Fox was the military codename for a major three-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16-December 18, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. These strikes were ordered by the President Bill Clinton and were undertaken in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.

(Wikipedia)


"Despite this, UNSCOM's own estimate was that 90-95% of Iraqi WMD's had been successfully destroyed before its 1998 withdrawal"

Source?


Do you even realise that you keep repeating claims without ever giving a source? Which UN document backs up your claims? Where do you have your information from? Why don't you tell me?

 
At Sunday, 12 March, 2006, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

"i believe so-called "lefty sites" when they quote UNSCOM "n 1998, UNSCOM was withdrawn at the request of the United States before Operation Desert Fox. Despite this, UNSCOM's own estimate was that 90-95% of Iraqi WMD's had been successfully destroyed before its 1998 withdrawal" that is after the kuwait war isn't it?"

Yes. It just happens not to be true. And you shouldn't believe so-called lefty sites. Turns out they didn't quote UNSCOM.

The Iraqi government threw UNSCOM out in September 1998. Clinton's attacks were announced and carried out in December. How likely do you think is it that UNSCOM would give as their reason to leave an event that happened two months in the future?

Seriously, QUESTION the information you get. Many things are plain wrong, some are easily spotted when you think about it for a few minutes.

You will have to realise that people do not disagree with you simply because they repeat whatever Fox says while you, repeating whatever source you have, are obviously so much more informed. People disagree with you, sometimes, because they simply know more, have looked into the issue, if perhaps only for a few minutes longer than you.



"more proof that iraq had no wmd's"

Not "more proof". We are still waiting for the original proof. You made the CLAIM that you knew that Iraq had no WMD's any more. I asked you to give me a source. You CLAIMED that UNSCOM reported such. I asked for the source. You never did give me the source. And your claims do not constitute proof.

You do not provide "more proof", you merely provide more claims.

 
At Sunday, 12 March, 2006, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

BTW, I was a bit surprised to see your spelling and punctuation improve, so I considered looking into the "thinking for yourself, not just repeating things" angle.

Turns out everything you think of yourself is badly spelled and has wrong punctuation, while everything that is spelled correctly and coherent in structure is text you simply repeat (without giving a source).

How is that for the difference between thinking for yourself and not just repeating things?

I take it that you usually argue in such a way. You do not actually have original thoughts or your own ideas, or even your own opinion. Instead you simply repeat what others said. Is that true?

It is a bit too apparent. You are clearly not used to stating your own opinion or come up with your own arguments. It is _very_ apparent indeed. And it's sad.

If you tried to make the case that left-wingers think for themselves while right-wingers simply repeat what "the government" (or whoever) tell them, you did it in exactly the wrong way.

You probably haven't even noticed it, because you are so used to repeating what others said and not very used at all to writing your own text.

Even if you don't believe me about Iraq, or still won't read actual UN reports, and even if you will continue to believe that what your sources tell you is the truth (did the people who quoted UNSCOM to you give a pointer to the original document?), learn at least this:

Always explain everything in your own words. It makes it easier for you to understand things. And it makes it more apparent to others that you do understand what you are talking about.

Always give a source when you make a claim. Don't just quote other people's articles as if theirs are your words. And don't rely on claims. Ask people for a source. When some Web site tells you that A said X, make sure they give you a source. If they won't, assume they are wrong.

(And do use correct spelling and punctuation. It's so much easier to read.)


I make use of the method explained above. My text is all my own words. And I don't believe your claim, because you did not give me a source (and because I KNOW that UNSCOM reported the exact opposite of what you claimed they report, but the first issue would have been enough).

Have a nice day. I hope when you reply again I will read more of your own words. Your attempt to prove to me that independent thought is important has succeeded.

 
At Sunday, 12 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

"In 1998, UNSCOM was withdrawn at the request of the United States before Operation Desert Fox."

Not quite:

Operation Desert Fox was the military codename for a major three-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16-December 18, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. These strikes were ordered by the President Bill Clinton and were undertaken in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.

The Iraqi government threw UNSCOM out in September 1998. Clinton's attacks were announced and carried out in December. How likely do you think is it that UNSCOM would give as their reason to leave an event that happened two months in the future?

you are wrong, where is your source on this, it's simple they warned UNSCOM to get out because they were going to lauch an aerial attack and did not want the inspectors to be at the facilities when the americans lauched the bombs.
saddam never kick out the inspectors, this is your turn to provide source to the contrary, but you won't.

tell me the difference between what i said, and what you said, there is none, you just go into more detail so you people might perceive that you know what your talking about and dismiss what i say.

BTW, I was a bit surprised to see your spelling and punctuation improve, so I considered looking into the "thinking for yourself, not just repeating things" angle.

very perceptive of you, really. however i do think for myself and yes my spelling needs improvment no doubt, but i don't have time to spell check, research sources and then post comments just so i can please you, i do have more important things to do. that's the difference between thinking for myself and also repeating copy pasting articles to back what i say no matter how bad the spelling

and has far as whatever sources i provide you dismiss as being lefty or not reputable, yet you kept me on the defensive, and you have yet to respond to "w199i"

and you haven't responded or explained this statement in your own words what colin powell said when appearing on Meet the Press, Colin Powell acknowledged that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons. That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. (Remember the drawings he displayed.) Yet Powell said on MTP, "it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading.

DELIBERATLY MISLEADING--WOW THAT PRETTY MUCH SUMS IT UP DON'T IT?

"Despite this, UNSCOM's own estimate was that 90-95% of Iraqi WMD's had been successfully destroyed before its 1998 withdrawal"

Source? give me by the end of this week, and i will in fact i'm gonna straight to the source UNSCOM website

You will have to realise that people do not disagree with you simply because they repeat whatever Fox says while you, repeating whatever source you have--since when do you speak for everyone, in fact people that think along the same lines has me is growing daily, check out prisonplanet.com, you think i'm a prick for the way i think, this website is even more hardcore and everything they say is documented and these guys get up to 80 millions hits a day on there website and there radio station is broadcast all over america.

Always give a source when you make a claim. Don't just quote other people's articles as if theirs are your words. And don't rely on claims.

how do explain scott ritter (chief weapons inspector) and what he has to say about wmd's in iraq, isn't that a source

i believe so-called mainstream news and embedded reports that say and continue to say "the u.s military has not found any wmd in iraq"

are you saying that it's just a matter of time before we do find wmd's and if not why not?

 
At Sunday, 12 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

"In 1998, UNSCOM was withdrawn at the request of the United States before Operation Desert Fox."

Not quite:

Operation Desert Fox was the military codename for a major three-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16-December 18, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. These strikes were ordered by the President Bill Clinton and were undertaken in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.


tell me the difference between what i said, and what you said, there is none, you just go into more detail so you people might perceive that you know what your talking about and dismiss what i say.

 
At Sunday, 12 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

another quote you never reputed is this one "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." —Dick Cheney, Vice President, Meet The Press, March 16, 2003

with all this evidence why can't they find wmd's

even donald rumsfeld said this during an ABC Interview on March 30, 2003 just days before the war

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld

Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."Dick Cheney

Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."George W. Bush


Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Paul Wolfowitz

Forged Iraq Documents Were Full of Flaws, abc news.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129574&page=1

you wnted sources, war profeteering corporate america mainstream news on top of that!

 
At Sunday, 12 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

yes i'm copy pasting

UNSCOM executive chairman Richard Butler orders the withdrawal of weapons inspectors from Iraq accusing the Iraqis of not cooperating. His actions follow a phone conversation with Peter Burleigh, the American representative to the United Nations [New York Times, 12/18/1998] , basically warning Butler that the US intends to strike Iraq. In his book, Saddam Defiant, Butler will recall: “I received a telephone call from US Ambassador Peter Burleigh inviting me for a private conversation at the US mission... Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be ‘prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.’... I told him that I would act on this advice and remove my staff from Iraq.” Butler's order to withdraw is made without the permission of the UN Security Council. [Butler, 2000, pp 224; Znet, 7/6/2004]

are you going to say that what Richard Butler wrote in his own book on pp 224 isn't true and is a lefty myth?

http://cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_2976

 
At Monday, 13 March, 2006, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

"tell me the difference between what i said, and what you said, there is none, you just go into more detail so you people might perceive that you know what your talking about and dismiss what i say."

It is likely that they will.

If you cannot see the difference between the two versions of the story, it is no wonder you and I disagree about Iraq.

You claim that UNSCOM withdrew because the Americans asked them to. In reality they withdrew because Saddam threw them out.

You claim that the Americans wanted to attack and thus asked UNSCOM to withdraw. In reality the attacks were the response to Iraq throwing out UNSCOM.

It is not "more detail", it is simply the truth, which your version of the story was not.

(Still waiting for the link to the UNSCOM report which says that the WMDs have been destroyed.)

 
At Monday, 13 March, 2006, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

"how do explain scott ritter (chief weapons inspector) and what he has to say about wmd's in iraq, isn't that a source"

It is a source, all right. It just doesn't say what you claimed and what I want you to back up.

You don't understand. You are too mechanic in your reactions. I do not doubt everything you say. This is about three of your claims, not EVERYTHING ELSE you might come up with.

You claimed that Iraq destroyed her WMD's, you claimed that this was known (even though the UN passed resolution after resolution condemning Iraq for not co-operating with the inspections), but you won't give the source for that claim.

And I am sure your other two claims I doubted will also never be backed up.

Instead you will just copy and paste another few statement about Bin Laden and the FBI or some other unrelated stuff. What George Bush or Colin Powell said about Iraq's WMD's doesn't prove a thing. I think you have made that point. Now it's time for you to understand that since these statement prove nothing, they also don't prove that Iraq had no WMD's.

But go ahead and paste a few more texts. I'm always glad to talk to a Web archive, specifically one filtered through an individual who talks a lot about thinking for onself but cannot formulate a single coherent thought of his own.

 
At Monday, 13 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

You claim that the Americans wanted to attack and thus asked UNSCOM to withdraw. In reality the attacks were the response to Iraq throwing out UNSCOM.

WHERE is your source of such claim that the attacks were the response to Iraq throwing out UNSCOM. i'm still waiting!

while you search you might want to read this again.


http://cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_2976


how do you explain this? --> Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be ‘prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.’... I told him that I would act on this advice and remove my staff from Iraq.” Butler's order to withdraw is made without the permission of the UN Security Council. [Butler, 2000, pp 224; Znet, 7/6/2004]--> check mate!

 
At Monday, 13 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1010-01.htm

The Inspection Process was Rigged to Create Uncertainty Over WMD to Bolster the US and UK's Case for War
by Scott Ritter,the UN's top weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998 (UNSCOM)

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9271

the resultant conclusion by the CIA that all Iraqi WMD had already been eliminated as early as 1991, by Scott Ritter,the UN's top weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998 (UNSCOM)

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/145202

the bottom line is by 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, there was no more production capability in Iraq--> by Scott Ritter,the UN's top weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998 (UNSCOM)

http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/winep-PolicyWatch-377-3-31-99.htm

Between 1991 and 1998, UNSCOM achieved considerable results in disarming Iraq by dismantling the bulk of Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities, as well as its ballistic missiles. None of Iraq's major biological weapons production facilities are in operation today, with some of them having been destroyed completely. Iraq's chemical weapons program has been driven into hiding, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has destroyed Iraq's pre-war nuclear weapons facilities.

by Scott Ritter,the UN's top weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998 (UNSCOM)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7038.htm

the ISG report concludes that all of Iraq’s WMD stockpiles had been destroyed in 1991, and WMD programmes and facilities dismantled by 1996.

by Scott Ritter,the UN's top weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998 (UNSCOM)

that proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that (UNSCOM) knew that iraq had no wmd's, now couple these statements with the statements of colin powell, dick cheney, donald rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz that i listed in priar posts and it paints a clear picture that they also knew, and that the downing street memo that "facts were being fixed around the policy" crystalizes this truth and the iraq war is immoral and illegal

 
At Monday, 13 March, 2006, Blogger jacobin said...

if you read the following paragragh it sums up why it was impossible for iraq to prove it destroyed all of its wmd, however scott ritter states "We now know that Iraq’s WMD were destroyed in 1991. The problem wasn’t the weapons, but verification of Iraq’s declarations."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7038.htm

Blix and his team of inspectors were saddled with a complicated list of “cluster issues”, ironically assembled by Duelfer during his tenure as head of the UN weapons inspectors, that would have needed to be rectified for any finding of compliance to be made. These “clusters” postulated the need for Iraq to prove the negative, something that is virtually impossible to do. We now know that Iraq’s WMD were destroyed in 1991. The problem wasn’t the weapons, but verification of Iraq’s declarations. The standards of verification set by Duelfer-Blix were impossible for Iraq to meet, thus making closure on the “cluster” issues also an unattainable goal.

check mate again, this little tete a tete has been fun, i will wait in anticipation for your rebutal of "you still haven't proven how the U.N. knew that the weapons wer destroyed in 1991) and thus clearly you grey matter's capacity to be able to connect the dots is well below average, and my time is better spent than debating you!

 
At Thursday, 15 July, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

票貼 借貸 借錢

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home