[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Never make threats you aren't at least plausibly willing to follow through on. Otherwise you end up on the wrong end of the Boy Who Cried Wolf story.

What about carrying out threats even when the demands to prevent the use of force are arguably met?

From where I sit, the only party who's been fraudulently crying wolf for the last year is the White House. We preempted a wolf that wasn't there.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
What about carrying out threats even when the demands to prevent the use of force are arguably met?

I don't remember Iraq ever coming into compliance with the UN mandates. Even the UN Inspectors prior to the war said that Iraq was not fully cooperating.

You talk about "crying wolf". Iraq made claims time and again that they were complying, yet gave resistance to inspectors time and again. At some point, you've got to say...enough with the BS, you've been given 12 years and that's enough time.

I think that most Americans understand a concept as simple as that.

[gadster]

stupendo, it seems fairly obvious that Saddam was playing a bluffing game. He was trying to put uncertainty in the minds of those who threatened his grip on power, internally and externally.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
I don't remember Iraq ever coming into compliance with the UN mandates. Even the UN Inspectors prior to the war said that Iraq was not fully cooperating.

You talk about "crying wolf". Iraq made claims time and again that they were complying, yet gave resistance to inspectors time and again. At some point, you've got to say...enough with the BS, you've been given 12 years and that's enough time.

I think that most Americans understand a concept as simple as that.

Wrong again. Blix said there were issues still unresolved but that Iraq was offering no resistance and cooperation was satisfactory.

What they complained about was Iraq not being more "pro-active" in offering up evidence. Now we know the reason for that was because no evidence existed--they destroyed everything but didn't document it.

But I've given up hope that anyone on the Right will ever get the facts straight on the 12 year history of UN success in Iraq. After all, facts should never trump ideology, right?

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Wrong again. Blix said there were issues still unresolved but that Iraq was offering no resistance and cooperation was satisfactory.

"Unresolved issues" is a nice euphamism for "non-compliance". While at the time it was decided that we would remove Saddam they weren't openly resisting inspectors, there had been other times when they did the same, only to go back to actively resisting and even refusing inspections once they believed there wouldn't be ramifications or the "heat" was let off. Regardless, it was their responsibility to provide the evidence that they destroyed their WMD programs. They were aware of this at the end of the Gulf War.

What they complained about was Iraq not being more "pro-active" in offering up evidence. Now we know the reason for that was because no evidence existed--they destroyed everything but didn't document it.

You theory lacks basic logic. Why on Earth would the Iraquis have done something that they were mandated to do, and provide evidence of, without documenting it? They knew at the end of the Gulf War that they would have to show that they dismantled their WMD programs, and they knew what WMD's we believed them to be in possesion of. Your theory requires us to believe that despite sanctions and a possible re-ignition of the war, that they were going to simply decide not to do the one thing that would ensure that they moved toward normal relations with the UN. I don't buy it.

But I've given up hope that anyone on the Right will ever get the facts straight on the 12 year history of UN success in Iraq. After all, facts should never trump ideology, right? [/B]

Get back to us when you stop relying on euphamisms and theories as "facts".

[Dudaev's Corpse]

thuderous_faker you're getting hammered.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
"Unresolved issues" is a nice euphamism for "non-compliance". While at the time it was decided that we would remove Saddam they weren't openly resisting inspectors, there had been other times when they did the same, only to go back to actively resisting and even refusing inspections once they believed there wouldn't be ramifications or the "heat" was let off. Regardless, it was their responsibility to provide the evidence that they destroyed their WMD programs. They were aware of this at the end of the Gulf War.



You theory lacks basic logic. Why on Earth would the Iraquis have done something that they were mandated to do, and provide evidence of, without documenting it? They knew at the end of the Gulf War that they would have to show that they dismantled their WMD programs, and they knew what WMD's we believed them to be in possesion of. Your theory requires us to believe that despite sanctions and a possible re-ignition of the war, that they were going to simply decide not to do the one thing that would ensure that they moved toward normal relations with the UN. I don't buy it.



Get back to us when you stop relying on euphamisms and theories as "facts".

blah blah blah

Seems I'm the only one here who actually read the Kay report. It answers all of your questions.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
blah blah blah

Seems I'm the only one here who actually read the Kay report. It answers all of your questions.

If after reading it, all it provides for an argument are euphemisms and illogical theories, I'll pass and just stick with the news reports.