[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
But that isn't the case here. It wasn't up to us to prove Iraq had or did not have them.

That was on Iraq. They failed to do so in the way they were told to. THAT is what got them into this mess.

People keep on forgetting, on purpose or not is, the proof was on Iraq. Not the US, not GWB, not the UN, not anyone but Saddam and Iraq.

They failed, Saddam thought his European buddies would get him out of trouble at the last minute, and they failed to do so.

We called his bluff.

No Zimph, you are the one that doesn't understand. The onus was NOT on Iraq to prove it didn't have WMD. Iraq had to:

1) make a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems within 30 days;

2) provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview.

The Security Council never found Iraq to have breached either of those obligations.

Those obligations I listed above come directly from Resolution 1441. If you still believe that the onus was on Iraq to prove that it didn't have WMD, please show me the document that put the onus on them.

[Zimphire]

Iraq was to get rid of the weapons, and show proof. Correct? Correct.

They did not.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Iraq was to get rid of the weapons, and show proof. Correct?

Incorrect!

I set out for you precisely what Iraq's obligations were - make a report and provide access. And I notice you still haven't provided any evidence to back up your argument.

That's Strike Two I believe.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Troll:
No Zimph, you are the one that doesn't understand. The onus was NOT on Iraq to prove it didn't have WMD. Iraq had to:

1) make a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems within 30 days;

2) provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview.

The Security Council never found Iraq to have breached either of those obligations.

Those obligations I listed above come directly from Resolution 1441. If you still believe that the onus was on Iraq to prove that it didn't have WMD, please show me the document that put the onus on them.

Yeah, right, they impeded and restricted access every step of the way. The inspectors on many many occassions left the country for fear of being murdered. Where were you when all that was going on?

[Zimphire]

Wait Troll. Are you saying Iraq didn't have to prove it got rid of it's weapons?

[Zimphire]

BTW here is a good article

http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ory_id=2384510

[Troll]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yeah, right, they impeded and restricted access every step of the way. The inspectors on many many occassions left the country for fear of being murdered. Where were you when all that was going on?

The only time UNMOVIC inspectors ever left Iraq in fear was when they feared being murdered by the US Army. You need to get a calendar out my friend.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wait Troll. Are you saying Iraq didn't have to prove it got rid of it's weapons?

Is that a swing? I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying. I'm disagreeing with your contention that the onus was on Iraq to prove that it had got rid of its WMD.

Batter up!

[Zimphire]

Go read that article I posted.

[ghost_flash]

Allow me to help:

Iraq's elusive weapons of mass destruction

Saddam Hussein's weapons mirage

Jan 29th 2004
From The Economist print edition


George Bush and Tony Blair exaggerated, but they did not lie



BEFORE going to war against Saddam Hussein last March, George Bush and Tony Blair told the world they were certain that the Iraqi dictator possessed chemical and biological weapons, and long-range missiles, and was actively seeking an atomic bomb. This was the basis on which millions of Americans, Britons and others, including The Economist, supported the war. But ten months after the invasion, and despite the interrogation of hundreds of captured Iraqi officials, none of these weapons has been discovered. Even David Kay, the hardline inspector America had put in charge of the post-war weapons hunt, expects now that none will be (see article). After resigning from his job last week, he said that Iraq seemed to have got rid of them in the 1990s.


The absence of these weapons is more than just an embarrassment. It raises the question of whether this war was fought on a false prospectus. Above all, did the president of the United States and the British prime minister lie?


So far, the answer seems to be no. Not a scrap of evidence has emerged since the war to suggest that Mr Bush or Mr Blair doubted the truth of their central claim. Moreover, given the evidence available to them at the time, they were entitled to their pre-war confidence.




In October 2002, America's National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and would probably have a nuclear weapon within the decade (or a year, if it got enough fissile material from abroad). Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee reached similar conclusions. Though the BBC accused the British government of �sexing up� a dossier from this body, this week's report by Lord Hutton clears the government. So did the MPs of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which compared the dossier with the raw intelligence from which it was derived.


Did the spies tell their political masters only what they wanted to hear? Perhaps. But the spies reached their conclusions long before the election of George W. Bush and September 11th put the invasion of Iraq back on the agenda. The CIA gave the same reports to Bill Clinton, not one of nature's warmongers. Besides, the case against Iraq did not rest on intelligence alone. There was also the testimony of the UN inspectors: neither those forced to withdraw from Iraq in 1998, nor those who returned before last year's war, could give Iraq a clean bill of health. And underlying the suspicion was the behaviour of Mr Hussein himself. If he had nothing to hide, why forgo billions of dollars of oil revenues instead of ending sanctions by showing the inspectors he had fully disarmed?


In short, the case for believing that Iraq had clung in defiance of the Security Council to its proscribed weapons was overwhelming. Even France's Jacques Chirac, who opposed the war, referred a month before it to Iraq's �probable� possession of them. This newspaper was blunter. However sceptical one might be about the intelligence, we said, �only a fool or a knave� would accept Mr Hussein's plea of innocence: a country with Iraq's record deserved no presumption of innocence.


So Messrs Bush and Blair seem to have believed, with good reason, that Iraq possessed proscribed weapons. What if, as now seems probable, they were nonetheless wrong? Then, as Mr Kay argues, there must have been a massive failure of intelligence. Though some of the spies continue to insist, like Mr Blair and America's Vice-President Dick Cheney, that the illicit weapons or material will turn up in due time, Mr Bush himself has begun to wax less adamant. Intelligence cannot always be definitive. But Britain and America need to investigate what looks like a comprehensive spying failure that will haunt policymakers next time they are called on to deal with a rogue state believed to be building an atomic bomb.

Not fibbing, but stretching


Still, the politicians are not off the hook. Did president and prime minister, sincerely believing their central claim against Iraq, allow their conviction to distort the evidence they put before their people? It looks that way. Mr Bush conjured up a link between Iraq, al-Qaeda and September 11th that probably did not exist. He created an impression of a threat to the American homeland that the intelligence does not seem to justify. And when tabloid newspapers read Britain's dossier to mean that Britons themselves could come under chemical attack within 45 minutes, Mr Blair did not trouble to put them right.


None of this exaggeration was necessary. The case for war rested on Iraq's possession of proscribed weapons; Iraq seems to have got rid of them before the war began. But the pre-war decision could be based only on what was known at the time, and Iraq shrouded the true facts in ambiguity�despite the UN's orders to prove that it had disarmed. Given Mr Hussein's record, that should have been justification enough for war.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Troll:
The only time UNMOVIC inspectors ever left Iraq in fear was when they feared being murdered by the US Army. You need to get a calendar out my friend.

Sorry, that's incorrect, on 3 occassions they were threatened to leave by Saddam between late `98 and late `02. Blix was even quoted in Sept 2002 saying, "Situations are quite tense, and at times we question our safety".

Now, why did Iraq refuse to comply, time and time again, to UN inspections? When asked to search the presidential palaces they were flat-out told "No". And most people knew that those were the most likely places weapons were being hidden. Saddam did this to himself because of years of noncompliance. To believe anything else is just moronic.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Troll:
Is that a swing? I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying. I'm disagreeing with your contention that the onus was on Iraq to prove that it had got rid of its WMD.

Batter up!

The onus was on Iraq to comply or face consequences. They didn't comply. Finis.

[ghost_flash]

Leur destin a �t� alors scell� !

Ihr Schicksal wurde dann versiegelt!

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW here is a good article

http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ory_id=2384510

Where's Simey when you need him? He'd point out that that is an OPINION, not an ARTICLE.

It's not backing up your argument anyway. Most of what he says I agree with. We all had strong suspicions that Saddam had WMD. I did point out at the time that his lack of cooperation could be explained by a desire to maintain prestige in the Arab world and not to show Iran and Israel (and his other enemies in the region) signs of weakness. In brief, I did suggest way back then that Saddam might be well advised to retain as much of the mystery about his WMD as possible.

That aside, the difference between Bush & Co. and the rest of us is that they thought their susipicions were firm enough to start killing people; the rest of us didn't. The rest of didn't see any harm in continuing a process that would either confirm or dispel our suspicions. We were lead to believe that Bush & Co. had information that we didn't and that therefore their were not mere suspicions but actual KNOWLEDGE.

10,000 innocent people were slaughtered in Iraq. You'd think these guys would have wanted better confirmation than a suspicion that Iraq had something to hide before doing that.

None of which is related to the obligations that were on Iraq. You have still not shown that the onus was on Iraq to prove that it didn't have WMD. Go and read Resolution 1441!

[ghost_flash]

You go read it, then report back when something in it backs anything you state.

[Troll]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
The onus was on Iraq to comply or face consequences.

For God's sake, why do you people refuse to back up this statement?

Making the same wrong argument over and over and over doesn't make it right. Show me where it says that the onus was on Iraq to prove it had destroyed its WMD or else graciously admit defeat and pursue a different argument ... like the one the Economist raises.

[Troll]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You go read it, then report back when something in it backs anything you state.

A few minutes ago I made a post with a number 1 and a number 2 in it. And after I'd posted those two little numbers, I posted this

Those obligations I listed above come directly from Resolution 1441.

[Zimphire]

Resolution 687 pretty much sums it up
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

Iraq indeed failed to comply. It was indeed Iraq's fault.

Not that this has anything to do with Kerry's military record.

[ghost_flash]

Let me add to this a little to benefit Troll:

United
Nations


S/RES/687 (1991)

8 April 1991




RESOLUTION 687 (1991)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting,
on 3 April 1991

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990, 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of 29 October 1990, 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990 and 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991,

Welcoming the restoration to Kuwait of its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and the return of its legitimate Government,

Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq, and noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait under paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with paragraph 8 of resolution 686 (1991),

Reaffirming the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions in the light of its unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait,

Taking note of the letter sent by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq on 27 February 1991 and those sent pursuant to resolution 686 (1991),

Noting that Iraq and Kuwait, as independent sovereign States, signed at Baghdad on 4 October 1963 "Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters", thereby recognizing formally the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait and the allocation of islands, which were registered with the United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations and in which Iraq recognized the independence and complete sovereignty of the State of Kuwait within its borders as specified and accepted in the letter of the Prime Minister of Iraq dated 21 July 1932, and as accepted by the Ruler of Kuwait in his letter dated 10 August 1932,

Conscious of the need for demarcation of the said boundary,

Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons,

Recalling that Iraq has subscribed to the Declaration adopted by all States participating in the Conference of States Parties to the 1925 Geneva Protocol and Other Interested States, held in Paris from 7 to 11 January 1989, establishing the objective of universal elimination of chemical and biological weapons,

Recalling also that Iraq has signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972,

Noting the importance of Iraq ratifying this Convention,

Noting moreover the importance of all States adhering to this Convention and encouraging its forthcoming Review Conference to reinforce the authority, efficiency and universal scope of the convention,

Stressing the importance of an early conclusion by the Conference on Disarmament of its work on a Convention on the Universal Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and of universal adherence thereto,

Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq,

Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968,

Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East,

Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons,

Conscious also of the objective of achieving balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region,

Conscious further of the importance of achieving the objectives noted above using all available means, including a dialogue among the States of the region,

Noting that resolution 686 (1991) marked the lifting of the measures imposed by resolution 661 (1990) in so far as they applied to Kuwait,

Noting that despite the progress being made in fulfilling the obligations of resolution 686 (1991), many Kuwaiti and third country nationals are still not accounted for and property remains unreturned,

Recalling the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, opened for signature at New York on 18 December 1979, which categorizes all acts of taking hostages as manifestations of international terrorism,

Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq,

Taking note with grave concern of the reports of the Secretary-General of 20 March 1991 and 28 March 1991, and conscious of the necessity to meet urgently the humanitarian needs in Kuwait and Iraq,

Bearing in mind its objective of restoring international peace and security in the area as set out in recent resolutions of the Security Council,

Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;

A

2. Demands that Iraq and Kuwait respect the inviolability of the international boundary and the allocation of islands set out in the "Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters", signed by them in the exercise of their sovereignty at Baghdad on 4 October 1963 and registered with the United Nations and published by the United Nations in document 7063, United Nations, Treaty Series, 1964;

3. Calls upon the Secretary-General to lend his assistance to make arrangements with Iraq and Kuwait to demarcate the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait, drawing on appropriate material, including the map transmitted by Security Council document S/22412 and to report back to the Security Council within one month;

4. Decides to guarantee the inviolability of the above-mentioned international boundary and to take as appropriate all necessary measures to that end in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

B

.

contd..

[ghost_flash]

continued.

5. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with Iraq and Kuwait, to submit within three days to the Security Council for its approval a plan for the immediate deployment of a United Nations observer unit to monitor the Khor Abdullah and a demilitarized zone, which is hereby established, extending ten kilometres into Iraq and five kilometres into Kuwait from the boundary referred to in the "Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters" of 4 October 1963; to deter violations of the boundary through its presence in and surveillance of the demilitarized zone; to observe any hostile or potentially hostile action mounted from the territory of one State to the other; and for the Secretary-General to report regularly to the Security Council on the operations of the unit, and immediately if there are serious violations of the zone or potential threats to peace;

6. Notes that as soon as the Secretary-General notifies the Security Council of the completion of the deployment of the United Nations observer unit, the conditions will be established for the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end consistent with resolution 686 (1991);

C

7. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

(b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such approval:

(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;

(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 (b) (i) above and the destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission, of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified under paragraph 8 (b) above;

(iii) The provision by the Special Commission of the assistance and cooperation to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12 and 13 below;

10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above and requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Special Commission, to develop a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of this resolution;

11. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968;

12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above; to submit to the Secretary-General and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution a declaration of the locations, amounts, and types of all items specified above; to place all of its nuclear-weapons-usable materials under the exclusive control, for custody and removal, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General discussed in paragraph 9 (b) above; to accept, in accordance with the arrangements provided for in paragraph 13 below, urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items specified above; and to accept the plan discussed in paragraph 13 below for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of its compliance with these undertakings;

13. Requests the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, through the Secretary-General, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General in paragraph 9 (b) above, to carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's nuclear capabilities based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission; to develop a plan for submission to the Security Council within forty-five days calling for the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items listed in paragraph 12 above; to carry out the plan within forty-five days following approval by the Security Council; and to develop a plan, taking into account the rights and obligations of Iraq under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with paragraph 12 above, including an inventory of all nuclear material in Iraq subject to the Agency's verification and inspections to confirm that Agency safeguards cover all relevant nuclear activities in Iraq, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of the present resolution;

continued...

[ghost_flash]

14. Takes note that the actions to be taken by Iraq in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the present resolution represent steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons;

D

15. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the steps taken to facilitate the return of all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, including a list of any property that Kuwait claims has not been returned or which has not been returned intact;

E

16. Reaffirms that Iraq, without prejudice to the debts and obligations of Iraq arising prior to 2 August 1990, which will be addressed through the normal mechanisms, is liable under international law for any direct loss, damage, including environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources, or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations, as a result of Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait;

17. Decides that all Iraqi statements made since 2 August 1990 repudiating its foreign debt are null and void, and demands that Iraq adhere scrupulously to all of its obligations concerning servicing and repayment of its foreign debt;

18. Decides also to create a fund to pay compensation for claims that fall within paragraph 16 above and to establish a Commission that will administer the fund;

19. Directs the Secretary-General to develop and present to the Security Council for decision, no later than thirty days following the adoption of the present resolution, recommendations for the fund to meet the requirement for the payment of claims established in accordance with paragraph 18 above and for a programme to implement the decisions in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 above, including: administration of the fund; mechanisms for determining the appropriate level of Iraq's contribution to the fund based on a percentage of the value of the exports of petroleum and petroleum products from Iraq not to exceed a figure to be suggested to the Council by the Secretary-General, taking into account the requirements of the people of Iraq, Iraq's payment capacity as assessed in conjunction with the international financial institutions taking into consideration external debt service, and the needs of the Iraqi economy; arrangements for ensuring that payments are made to the fund; the process by which funds will be allocated and claims paid; appropriate procedures for evaluating losses, listing claims and verifying their validity and resolving disputed claims in respect of Iraq's liability as specified in paragraph 16 above; and the composition of the Commission designated above;

F

20. Decides, effective immediately, that the prohibitions against the sale or supply to Iraq of commodities or products, other than medicine and health supplies, and prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall not apply to foodstuffs notified to the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) concerning the situation between Iraq and Kuwait or, with the approval of that Committee, under the simplified and accelerated "no-objection" procedure, to materials and supplies for essential civilian needs as identified in the report of the Secretary-General dated 20 March 1991, and in any further findings of humanitarian need by the Committee;

21. Decides that the Security Council shall review the provisions of paragraph 20 above every sixty days in the light of the policies and practices of the Government of Iraq, including the implementation of all relevant resolutions of the Security Council, for the purpose of determining whether to reduce or lift the prohibitions referred to therein;

22. Decides that upon the approval by the Security Council of the programme called for in paragraph 19 above and upon Council agreement that Iraq has completed all actions contemplated in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 above, the prohibitions against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq and the prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall have no further force or effect;

23. Decides that, pending action by the Security Council under paragraph 22 above, the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) shall be empowered to approve, when required to assure adequate financial resources on the part of Iraq to carry out the activities under paragraph 20 above, exceptions to the prohibition against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq;

24. Decides that, in accordance with resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent related resolutions and until a further decision is taken by the Security Council, all States shall continue to prevent the sale or supply, or the promotion or facilitation of such sale or supply, to Iraq by their nationals, or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of:

(a) Arms and related materiel of all types, specifically including the sale or transfer through other means of all forms of conventional military equipment, including for paramilitary forces, and spare parts and components and their means of production, for such equipment;

(b) Items specified and defined in paragraphs 8 and 12 above not otherwise covered above;

(c) Technology under licensing or other transfer arrangements used in the production, utilization or stockpiling of items specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above;

(d) Personnel or materials for training or technical support services relating to the design, development, manufacture, use, maintenance or support of items specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above;

25. Calls upon all States and international organizations to act strictly in accordance with paragraph 24 above, notwithstanding the existence of any contracts, agreements, licences or any other arrangements;

26. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with appropriate Governments, to develop within sixty days, for the approval of the Security Council, guidelines to facilitate full international implementation of paragraphs 24 and 25 above and paragraph 27 below, and to make them available to all States and to establish a procedure for updating these guidelines periodically;

27. Calls upon all States to maintain such national controls and procedures and to take such other actions consistent with the guidelines to be established by the Security Council under paragraph 26 above as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of paragraph 24 above, and calls upon international organizations to take all appropriate steps to assist in ensuring such full compliance;

28. Agrees to review its decisions in paragraphs 22, 23, 24 and 25 above, except for the items specified and defined in paragraphs 8 and 12 above, on a regular basis and in any case one hundred and twenty days following passage of the present resolution, taking into account Iraq's compliance with the resolution and general progress towards the control of armaments in the region;

29. Decides that all States, including Iraq, shall take the necessary measures to ensure that no claim shall lie at the instance of the Government of Iraq, or of any person or body in Iraq, or of any person claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or body, in connection with any contract or other transaction where its performance was affected by reason of the measures taken by the Security Council in resolution 661 (1990) and related resolutions;

G

30. Decides that, in furtherance of its commitment to facilitate the repatriation of all Kuwaiti and third country nationals, Iraq shall extend all necessary cooperation to the International Committee of the Red Cross, providing lists of such persons, facilitating the access of the International Committee of the Red Cross to all such persons wherever located or detained and facilitating the search by the International Committee of the Red Cross for those Kuwaiti and third country nationals still unaccounted for;

31. Invites the International Committee of the Red Cross to keep the Secretary-General apprised as appropriate of all activities undertaken in connection with facilitating the repatriation or return of all Kuwaiti and third country nationals or their remains present in Iraq on or after 2 August 1990;

H

32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;

I

33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.

.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Resolution 687 pretty much sums it up
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

Iraq indeed failed to comply. It was indeed Iraq's fault.

Not that this has anything to do with Kerry's military record.

Ah, the old trick of overwhelming the opposition with reams of documents. Resolution 687 doesn't say ANYWHERE that the onus is on Iraq to prove that it doesn't have WMD. STRIKE TWO!

Here's an article in point for youAn extract:

President George Bush said last week that the onus was on Iraq to prove that it has no weapons of mass destruction, but the course set by UN resolution 1441 puts the onus on the inspectors to disprove Iraq's declaration, ...

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Troll:
For God's sake, why do you people refuse to back up this statement?

Making the same wrong argument over and over and over doesn't make it right. Show me where it says that the onus was on Iraq to prove it had destroyed its WMD or else graciously admit defeat and pursue a different argument ... like the one the Economist raises.

Now, why did Iraq refuse to comply, time and time again, to UN inspections? When asked to search the presidential palaces they were flat-out told "No". And most people knew that those were the most likely places weapons were being hidden. Saddam did this to himself because of years of noncompliance. To believe anything else is just moronic.

The onus was on Iraq to comply or face consequences. They didn't comply. Fini, partie deux.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Hash:
Ever heard of presumption of innocence? YOU must prove that they had weapons, which is your claim, or unless proved that they had weapons, which is NOT proved, Iraq is presumed to be innocent (ie without weapons).


Basics of law and civilization, 101

No. Rules change when dealing with non-democracies.

[Troll]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
The onus was on Iraq to comply or face consequences. They didn't comply. Fini, partie deux.

Let's stick to the argument that the onus was on Iraq to prove it didn't have WMD. Then we can deal with the argument as to who determines compliance with Security Council Resolutions (Hint - the answer isn't individual members of the Security Council).

[ghost_flash]

Why don't you start a thread about this topic while the rest of us discuss *this* thread's title?

*Hint*

"John Kerry's Military Record"

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Troll:
Let's stick to the argument that the onus was on Iraq to prove it didn't have WMD. Then we can deal with the argument as to who determines compliance with Security Council Resolutions (Hint - the answer isn't individual members of the Security Council).

Ok. How's this, the onus was on the UN inspectors to prove Iraq had said weapons and Iraq obstructed the investigations thereby obstructing justice, which lead to severe reprisals which had been threatened for years. Again, as said earlier, Saddam brought this upon himself and Iraq.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Ok. How's this, the onus was on the UN inspectors to prove Iraq had said weapons and Iraq obstructed the investigations thereby obstructing justice, which lead to severe reprisals which had been threatened for years. Again, as said earlier, Saddam brought this upon himself and Iraq.

Either way, no matter HOW it's painted.. it's STILL SADDAM'S FAULT.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Why don't you start a thread about this topic while the rest of us discuss *this* thread's title?

*Hint*

"John Kerry's Military Record"

I thought we already concluded that he's withholding records, dodging some type of conduct issues... wrote his own commendation requests, was considered a coward by some fellow soldiers, etc..

[Joshua]

Back on topic:

Discrepancies noted in Kerry's record (Boston Globe)

Discrepancies noted in Kerry's record
Ex-skipper says website wrong
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff _|_ April 23, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Vietnam combat records posted on John F. Kerry's campaign website for the month of January 1969 as evidence of his service aboard swift boat No. 94 describe action that occurred before Kerry was skipper of that craft, according to the officer who said he commanded the boat at the time.

On the site, the Massachusetts senator is described as the skipper of Navy boat No. 94 during several actions in late January 1969.

However, Edward Peck, who was the skipper of the 94 before Kerry took over, said combat reports posted by the campaign for January 1969 involve action when he was the skipper, not Kerry. Peck, who was seriously wounded in fighting that took place on Jan. 29, 1969, said he believes Kerry campaign aides made a mistake in claiming Kerry as skipper of the 94 at that time.

(continued...)

[ghost_flash]

Joshua:

That's some great stuff. Keep it coming.

MacNStein:

I guess you were right, but maybe the Iraq debate can get it's own thread.

[Troll]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Ok. How's this, the onus was on the UN inspectors to prove Iraq had said weapons ...

Originally posted by Zimphire

Phew, so you and Zimphire finally admit defeat on the first point. Excellent!

Originally posted by MacNStein:
...and Iraq obstructed the investigations thereby obstructing justice, which lead to severe reprisals which had been threatened for years.

As to your new point, Iraq was never accused of not providing immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview (as was required under 1441). It complied with that.

Blix accused them of always complying procedurally but sometimes not understanding that they needed to comply substantively. That's something entirely different. In any event, the task for determining compliance lay with the UNSC not the United States of America. The UNSC needed to receive a report of non-compliance from Blix and then make a finding. That never happened. The SC never found Iraq to be obstructing inspections. In fact, if you look at all of the reports on Iraq, the trend was towards better and better cooperation. Blix noted as much. Bush took a huge risk by cutting the inspection process short and commencing the slaughter. He gambled that he would find WMD and look like a hero. It didn't pay off. There were no WMD and he now just looks like a premature ejaculator.

I'm done with this thread. Sorry kids, but getting you to back up your arguments is like pulling teeth. I'm going to settle for having got you to admit that the onus wasn't on Saddam to prove he didn't have any WMD and retire. Goodnight.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
Phew, so you and Zimphire finally admit defeat on the first point. Excellent!

Er..





No.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Allow me to help:

Jan 29th 2004
From The Economist print edition

George Bush and Tony Blair exaggerated, but they did not lie

I've been saying since before the invasion that they were exaggerating, and have been attacked for it as a "Bush-basher." Now the Bush loyalists are using the fact that he merely exaggerated in his defense. More Alice In Wonderland stuff. Next thing you know, Bush loyalists will be adopting Scott Ritter and General Shinseki and General Zinni as their mascots because they were right all along, and the invasion proved it!

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Troll:
Phew, so you and Zimphire finally admit defeat on the first point. Excellent!

As to your new point, Iraq was never accused of not providing immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview (as was required under 1441). It complied with that.

Blix accused them of always complying procedurally but sometimes not understanding that they needed to comply substantively. That's something entirely different. In any event, the task for determining compliance lay with the UNSC not the United States of America. The UNSC needed to receive a report of non-compliance from Blix and then make a finding. That never happened. The SC never found Iraq to be obstructing inspections. In fact, if you look at all of the reports on Iraq, the trend was towards better and better cooperation. Blix noted as much. Bush took a huge risk by cutting the inspection process short and commencing the slaughter. He gambled that he would find WMD and look like a hero. It didn't pay off. There were no WMD and he now just looks like a premature ejaculator.

I'm done with this thread. Sorry kids, but getting you to back up your arguments is like pulling teeth. I'm going to settle for having got you to admit that the onus wasn't on Saddam to prove he didn't have any WMD and retire. Goodnight.

Nope, you're the one arguing semantics, Saddam got what he had coming to him for murdering, dodging, and being a villain. Nothing you say will ever change my mind about that. I can't help but feel you sympathize with him, thereby making yourself just as bad as he is.

The end.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I've been saying since before the invasion that they were exaggerating, and have been attacked for it as a "Bush-basher." Now the Bush loyalists are using the fact that he merely exaggerated in his defense. More Alice In Wonderland stuff. Next thing you know, Bush loyalists will be adopting Scott Ritter and General Shinseki and General Zinni as their mascots because they were right all along, and the invasion proved it!

Bush never murdered 1.2mil of his own people either. Saddam was way past due.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Joshua:

That's some great stuff. Keep it coming.

MacNStein:

I guess you were right, but maybe the Iraq debate can get it's own thread.

Sorry, I got carried away "troll" hunting.

[ghost_flash]

No need for an apology. I'm enjoying your match thus far but I have to say, this is a severe mismatch! As self-appointed referee, I am going to have to order you to tie the other half of your brain behind your back.... it's getting bloody.

[Hash]

yep. Zimph fled bleeding with resolution 1441, Macstein could only add *semantics* since he could not prove opposite and ghostflush seems to be out of his anecdotes, so he asked macstein to supply him more of them.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Bush never murdered 1.2mil of his own people either. Saddam was way past due.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not (a) Bush exaggerated, (b) I got flamed for saying so, or (c) some people here are so blindly loyal to Bush that they're incapable of dealing with even legitimate criticism.

I supported the invasion in principle, so your point about Saddam being a bad guy is moot. My views are not far from many Republicans, including General Powell, but I still get flamed as a Bush-basher. I don't really care, it would just be nice to have a board with discussion above the 6th grade level.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Hash:
yep. Zimph fled bleeding with resolution 1441, Macstein could only add *semantics* since he could not prove opposite and ghostflush seems to be out of his anecdotes, so he asked macstein to supply him more of them.

Heh, riiiight. Keep thinking that way, we'll wake you after you get through sleeping off whatever it is you're on.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Which has nothing to do with whether or not (a) Bush exaggerated, (b) I got flamed for saying so, or (c) some people here are so blindly loyal to Bush that they're incapable of dealing with even legitimate criticism.

I supported the invasion in principle, so your point about Saddam being a bad guy is moot. My views are not far from many Republicans, including General Powell, but I still get flamed as a Bush-basher. I don't really care, it would just be nice to have a board with discussion above the 6th grade level.

Fair enough. I will say though, being an election year I'm sure emotions are running higher than they'd normally be.

[Troll]

Originally posted by zigzag:
it would just be nice to have a board with discussion above the 6th grade level.

[tie]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
"Kerry's mother was a Forbs wasn't she? I have seen pictures of Kerry on a yacht with JFK. He was in the navy in Vietnam came home and went back to captain a gunboat in Mekong Delta. He got a silver star and a bronze star and a purple heart. He was only on the boat about 4 months he came home because was wounded three times. I don't think he was ever in the hospital for any wounds. His silver star came from turning his boat into an ambush. The ambush consisted of one VC with a grenade launcher with one shot. The boat had more firepower than a whole infantry platoon. The 50 cal. MG had already pulverized the VC's position Kerry then jumped off the boat and brought back the launcher no rifle. Apparently the VC was un armed after the first shot. If Kerry had not been "who he was" it would have been hard to get to captain the gunboat and probably would not have been put in for a medal. I got this info off the net. I was in the infantry and went from squad leader, to platoon sgt., to platoon leader I got a couple of bronze stars and a purple heart. I was in the hospital & recuperation for two months. I thought you had to be hospitalized to get a purple heart until recently. Most of the guys in my platoon were hit with shrapnel several times and we did not get purple hearts for them. I was hit in the ankle, the back, and the left leg, under the left eye, and right shoulder all very minor. My point is that many of our guys did more every day for a year in the boonies than Kerry did and received no medals. With the exception of one man Ernest Stapleton who got two silver stars and three bronze stars. We were not hero's we just did our jobs. I was twenty years old at the time. Unless there is more than what I read Kerry is no HERO! Had he not been "somebody" (rich kid) He would have had no medals. He did go but his sellout of the pows and support of the communists and protesters is inexcuseable!"

-Vietnam Vet


More on his records (150 pages) to come...

I'm supposing you don't have a real source or you would have posted it. Why don't we all make up stories about Kerry's record in Vietnam, and post them here? It would be fun.

All right, you've had your turn, let me try:

"I've heard that Kerry never even went to Vietnam. All those photos are fakes. His medals too. Anyway, he supported the French support Iraqi terrorists build weapons of mass destruction, his wife's an undercover CIA agent (oops), and the whole Vietnam thing was just Kerry trying to drum up publicity for his book."

-pretend Vietnam Vet

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Hash:
yep. Zimph fled bleeding with resolution 1441, Macstein could only add *semantics* since he could not prove opposite and ghostflush seems to be out of his anecdotes, so he asked macstein to supply him more of them.

At least I don't have my head in the sand.

Iraq did indeed have to show proof it got rid of the weapons. Otherwise.. how would we know?

100% Silly.