<font color="#C4C1CA">No, not Scott Ritter this time - but David Kay!</font>

US expert slams WMD 'delusions'
Weapons of mass destruction do not exist in Iraq and it is "delusional" to think they will be found, says former chief US weapons inspector David Kay.

Mr Kay told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that British and American leaders should simply apologise and admit that they were wrong.

He said Saddam Hussein had intended to reconstitute his weapons programme at some point and had acted illegally.

However, there were no actual WMD stockpiles, he said.

Mr Kay led the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq until he stepped down as head of the Iraq Survey Group in January.

He said at the time that he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.

In his latest comments, Mr Kay referred to the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, by name.

"Anyone out there holding - as I gather Prime Minister Blair has recently said - the prospect that, in fact, the Iraq Survey Group is going to unmask actual weapons of mass destruction, are really delusional," he said.

"There is nothing there. There is a programme there. There was an intention of Saddam Hussein at some point to reconstitute it.

"There were clearly illegal activities, clear violations of UN Security Council resolutions. We have accumulated that evidence and really have accumulated that evidence to a considerable degree four months ago.

"There are not actual stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction."

Mr Kay repeated his previous assertions that the US-led coalition had been mistaken in its assumption that Saddam Hussein had possessed the banned weapons.

"We simply got it wrong," he said. "Iraq was a dangerous country, Saddam was an evil man and we are better off without him and all of that. But we were wrong in our estimation."
<font size="1">BBC News</font>

<font color="#C4C1CA">Time for a Hatchet job on the man, 'Scott Ritter' style. Maybe someone can arrange to have him found carrying drugs or implicate him in underage sex as well?</font>

Edwin\ No WoMD were found in iraq, therefore Saddam had none in the first place. Excellent deduction. /Edwin

So there are no Womd in Iraq.
Did any one check Syria?

Jan\ It reminds me of that time waaaaay back /Jan, when police raided some house when searching for drugs. The drugs owner hid it in his friends house, so the judge deducted that he had none.

Untill USA checks Syria, this isue is unsolvable.

I agree with Black Baron's point that checking Syria makes the issue irrefutable.

On the other hand though, the "Syria conspiricists" should accept that there is enough paperwork on hand from enough factories and government departments that appears to establish that Iraq was not in the business of manufacturing WOMD in the period of the inspections and international threats.

Did they use to have WOMD 5-15 years ago - categorically yes. Did they unload some of that old stuff to Syria - possibly. Did they want to get back into the WOMD game - most probably. Were they producing WOMD in the prior 3-5 years - the evidence says NOT and until something says they did, the NOT position is firming towards being conclusive.

Sooner or later on this last point the intelligence community needs to produce their proof or say "whoops - sorry". Does it change a whole lot - not really - most people's minds are already pretty much madeup as to what they think of the Iraq war and the actions of their respective governments. Saying "we got it wrong" ain't gunna change a whole lot.

The only WMD in the region are in Israel, Black Baron.
Perhaps we should check there first?

Ooooh, isn't Skunk quick with the gloves off.

And, Skunk you certainly realize that you just made a false statement. Ruin your credibility if you like, but only a nincompoop would believe that NO WMD are habored in Syria, Iran, etc. -- at the very least WMD gas is certainly stored/made by those countries. Assuming it's not (which is a ludicrous stretch for one who is pragmatic), there is still the missing gas stores of Saddam -- which certainly wound up in one or more locations in the region.

Once you remove the bias, you find these quotes. Balance is a beautiful thing you've seemed to miss Skunk.

Davros' post pretty much summed up my own opinion about the whole thing. Good post! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

<font color=deepskyblue>So no new WMD were found in Iraq. Gee, I guess we shouldn't have been so mean to poor Mr. Hussein, then. :rolleyes: I will agree that Bush and Blair should admit that their intelligence information regarding WMD appears to have been wrong. Oh - Wait - they already did that and were roundly criticized for not being more suspicious of the information they received.

Never mind that Hussein had actually USED WMD on the Kurds back in the 90's and had threatened to do the same to the U.S. through terrorist attacks. Never mind that Hussein's own scientists were feeding HIM false information regarding the number of WMD's they had on hand (even Hussein thought he had more than he really did), and - finally - let's just ignore the fact that Hussein had PLENTY of time to move any WMD's he may have had out of the country. I agree that the conjecture of moving the WMD's seems a little shaky. After all, you're country is being invaded - if you've got ANY WMD's, THAT would seem like the best time to use them. Then again, that also implies that the leader actually plans to stay in country and fight the infidels with every thing he has instead of leaving his troops to be slaughtered while he breaks for the nearest border at max speed.

But none of those issues really matter anymore. What DOES strike me is the highlighted portion of the interview, where David Kay acknowledges they have accumulated "considerable evidence" proving that Saddam Hussein was engaging in "clear violations of U.N. Resolutions". In other words, they have gathered apparantly irrefutable proof that Saddam Hussein DID engage in numerous illegal activities that specifically violated the U.N. Resolutions.

And what was the U.N. wanting to do about this??? Anybody??? That's right...let's give Saddam just a little more time to stop violating these sanctions and start obeying the rules. I'm sure he will eventually cease these violations if we just put enough pressure on him.

{sigh} Saddam Hussein was a blight on humanity in general and a sadistic, torturous dictator of the worst stripe. Maybe the information about the WMD's was wrong, but it was NOT THE ONLY REASON LISTED FOR GOING TO WAR!!! It may have been the most oft mentioned reason, but it was not the ONLY reason...and - by his own admission - David Kay and his group found more than enough evidence to justify the action taken against Saddam Hussein.

Of course, we could have left the decision of how to handle Saddam Husssein with the U.N.. And if we had done that, Saddam and his boys would still be murdering and torturing anybody that looked at them wrong while the U.N. engaged in some very serious hand-wringing and issued "harsh reprimands" condemning their behavior.</font>

The only WMD in the region are in Israel, Black Baron.
Perhaps we should check there first? </font>[/QUOTE]And Pakistan Skunk. And India Skunk. And Russia Skunk. So quick to point the finger at Israel.

And Skunk, what's your opinion on Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait? What's the commonality between them I wonder?

Don't even dare to complain about the UN enforcing resolutions when no country has done more to undermine this process than America.

UN Resolutions violated or ignored, by Iraq:

UN Resolutions violated, ignored, by Israel:

This list only includes the resolutions that actually got through, keeping in mind the amount of US vetoing that goes on...

That's 16 to 84, Israel actually has proven WMD's, including nuclear ones, but we never see American troops dying to invade there...

It's funny how American's never complain about UN failure to enforce resolutions when it suits their political goals. It reflects the conservative view of the world, one in which International Institutions exist to further the interests of America (IMF, World Bank etc), become no longer useful when not corresponding to these perceived 'interests' (eg. UN) and where aid becomes a tool to be used to buy political consensus on the international stage. It's simply sickening.

[ 06-07-2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Wow, what a long list of anti-semitism from the UN. Apparently, parades are suddenly "deplorable." The UN as a whole should get the biggest Resolution regarding the middle east, not only for playing peanut gallery and Monday-morning Quarterback about the whole thing from their lofty perch on high all the time, but also for being the collective group of idiots that stuck the cobra and mongoose in the same cage to begin with.

Anti-semitism

\An`ti-Sem"i*tism\, n. Opposition to, or hatred of, Semites, esp. Jews.

Find me a resolution from that list that's anti-semitic.

If passing resolutions that oppose Israel's actions is anti-semitic, then the US has no answer to accusations of being anti-arabic and anti-muslim.

Don't insult the intelligence of all the people in the UN from across the world by branding them with an inaccurate label. Calling people who criticise Israel's actions anti-semitic is the last resort of the desperate apologist.

[ 06-07-2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Fair enough. These days being anti-Arabic suits me fine.

Condemning a parade is ludicrous. Jerusalem is the holy city of the Jews, and they should be able to celebrate being Jewish there. It's the hallowed ground where they slew Jesus, after all. :D

Let me count the number of peoples and religions I just insulted there in one way or another. *smiles* Must be a personal record.

Come now Timber, that was just before the 1969 war. It seems that blocking such a provocative parade (and a military one - not civilians celebrating, which indeed they have every right to do) given the circumstances is sensible and not ludicrous.

In any case, ludicrous is not anti-semitic.

EDIT:

Also, a point of information: Jerusalem was not part of the original Israeli state. The UN, when partitioning Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, declared that Jerusalem and its environs (including Bethlehem) would be an internationally administered enclave in the projected Arab state. Only in the 1967 war, did Israel gain control over all of it.

Their right to parade tanks through it, one year after invading it, seems a little more suspect now...

Any other ones you wish to pick out?

[ 06-07-2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

And i just can't resist quoting one of your comments: "that has to be the dumbest thing i've read all week". ;)

If your anti-arabic stance is representative of your country, or at least your administration, (which when looking at the likes of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld doesn't seem unreasonable), then is it any wonder arabic states feel they need WMD's for their own protection from a rogue superpower?

[ 06-07-2004, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Just wanted to note this was total sarcasm. Just in case it wasn't clear.

As for the list of charges against Israel, I think some of it is crap and some on-point. But, if it really is so wrong for Israel to take land that was not its own to begin with (which I have said time and again that it is), then this list of censures and reprimands is just funny. Why doesn't the UN get off its collective ass and do something? Well, because it can't -- it's a useless organization.

I do note, that 50 years and 150 more resolutions from now, this is what the litany against Saddam might look like. My country thought that was untenable, that if something really was wrong, it should cease and desist, and took matters into its own hands. Shouldn't the world, or at least some few countries, do that with Israel? Why don't they?

At some point you put up your fisticuffs and have it out, or you slink away with your tail between your legs. What's it gonna be?

Just wanted to note this was total sarcasm. Just in case it wasn't clear.</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, it wasn't. I'm never quite sure with you!

EDIT: Incidentally, please don't take offense at this, it was not meant as a personal attack. I do find some of your opinions quite shocking, so I genuinely am not sure sometimes!

Two reasons:

1) US vetoing of 'chapter 7' resolutions (ie ones that are required to be implemented) - i think all of Israel's are watered down to be 'chapter 6' ones.

2) Israel has WMD's. As does Iran and North Korea. None of which get invaded by America. Lets not forget Pakistan of course, which actually delivered the technology to loads of other countries. They're all far bigger security threats to the world than Iraq ever was.

You can see why everybody wants WMD. As international law doesn't protect them from America, they turn to the next best thing, and its worked so well for those countries that have them.

[ 06-08-2004, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

To be sure, nukes are the great equalizer.

But you don't believe that's a dangerous way to live? Wouldn't the world be better if law prevailed instead?

International law only becomes irrelevent once countries decide to act outside it. It needs a determined effort by the US to make it meaningful. Simply blaming the UN on the one hand for not enforcing it, whilst treating international law with such contempt on the other, is shirking the responsibility America has as the system-leader.

[ 06-07-2004, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

The law should prevail. Enforcement of the law is exactly HOW the law prevails.

Enforcement of the law equally and applying to all is how the law prevails ;) Otherwise you will always have the disenfranchised that resort to illegal methods.

<font color=deepskyblue>And no matter how the law is enforced, there will be some who felt it was not enforced "equally" - and they will become disenfranchised and resort to illegal methods.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>Bringing up Israel in a thread about Iraq is another "last resort" of a desparate apologist. When they can't counter a particular point, they just say "Oh yeah? Well what about Israel?" :rolleyes: </font>

<font color=deepskyblue>Bringing up Israel in a thread about Iraq is another "last resort" of a desparate apologist. When they can't counter a particular point, they just say "Oh yeah? Well what about Israel?" :rolleyes: </font> </font>[/QUOTE]1) An apologist is he who defends the indefensible regardless of the crimes committed. In this thread, I fully agree with Skunks original post and am firmly in the 'attack' camp and therefore cannot be an apologist.

2) Israel had already been brought up in this thread by Skunk when I came to read it

3) What makes bringing up Israel in this thread any different from your post which brought up the UN in a thread devoted to America and Britain's delusions about WMD

4) I agree with most of your original post I quoted from. However by using the 'other reasons' to go to war as justification, comparisons must be drawn with other countries who have done much worse. The question you should be asking is "if the justification for war wasn't about WMD but the other resolutions Saddam broke, then why didn't the US invade the countless other countries that are guilty of the same thing?" The worst offender of course is Israel, so its only natural to use it as an example. The reason for the invasion - both America's middle-east agenda and of course the anti-saddam clique in the Bush dynasty.

5) My post was in response to your critcising the United Nations' inability to enforce resolutions - I simply explained why. If painting the US and Israel in a bad light re. UN activities touches a nerve, then good, it should. Sit back and look at the facts and just consider the possibility that such criticism is justified.

6) I notice that your post doesn't actually contain any response to my argument? Perhaps because it's a valid one? I believe you've just managed to do exactly what I was criticising and dodged the real issues raised by objecting to me using Israel as an example in the first place.

Quite possibly. However, it seems very plausible that the number of people would be vastly diminished. I agree that there's "always someone" who is going to feel disenfranchised. But surely only a fool would argue that removing actual and legitimate causes for disenfranchisement wouldn't lead to a reduction in this number. Its plain common-sense.

Also, contrary to popular American myth, Islamists don't ulutate (i do like that word TL by the way ;) ) just for the sake of it. The majority of the Islamist movement is young, educated and disollusioned youth. These people aren't stupid just because they're Arabic or Muslim.

Ask a Muslim why they're protesting against America and they will tell you that they hate America because of its double standards. They believe its anti-arabic and anti-muslim because of its unwavering support for Israel. I won't even bother going into what Iraq did to the state of US-Arab relations. Many have to live, or have lived, under brutal dictators that are only there because of American support / military assistance. It claims to be the bastion of liberty and freedom, but in fact, this only applies if you're liked by the current administration.

Theirs is not an irrational hatred, and that is why the public in practically every civilised and educated country around the world agrees with their position in principle. The only two exceptions, of course, being Israel and America. We should ask what makes these two countries different from all the others in the world.

Israel's media reporting with regard to current events is quite commendable, full details of palestinians shot and killed etc are usually given. The siege mentality that exists however makes these things excusable and not politically damaging. But it's certainly often accurate with the facts, if extremely one sided and crude in tackling the underlying causes and reasoning.

The American media has no excuse on the other hand - you get the news you want to hear. Even clips from Israeli news channels are censored by the time they hit US screens. At least if I was Syrian I know the media is state controlled - in America, the self-censorship that goes on is far more insidious, because if that's all you're exposed to, you don't realise.

I wonder if you were typing your IW replies on the front line in Palestine rather than behind your desk in N. Carolina you might alter your opinions a little...

[edits for clarity and additional content]

[ 06-08-2004, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

<font color=deepskyblue> I will agree that Bush and Blair should admit that their intelligence information regarding WMD appears to have been wrong. Oh - Wait - they already did that and were roundly criticized for not being more suspicious of the information they received.
</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Point of order my dear Cerek - nothing diabolical,but just an inconsistancy that I noted when reading your post.

The article of origin (for this thread) clearly states (and requests) that Blair should depart from his stance of certainty that the Iraq Survey Group WILL find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

If Blair is thus so categorically confident then why would you lay laim that he has apologised for the falseness of intelligence that he still clearly believes in.

I am similarly not aware that Bush has ever categorically admitted that his intel was wrong. I think that it is generally leaking through that the stories look more and more unreliable. Not that I think it necessary for the leader of the country to say we got it wrong either - just pointing out that I don't think Teflon Tony or wee George have actually done so.

Shamrock... the difference between Iraq and Israel, is that Israel act in REACTION. Understand that. They hold the west bank, and Jerusalem because letting them go back to Jordan is militarily undefensable. Given that every Arabic nation declared war on them, and that only Egypt have acknowledge Israel's existence, let alone right to exist, the decision to keep hold of a buffer zone, to SAVE THE LIVES OF IT'S PEOPLE, seems fair.

No Arab invasion = no six day war = no Sinai/West Bank/Gaza possession.

It's called consequences.

Iraq, on the other hand premptively invaded Kuwait, under Hussein. The problem was not Iraq, but Hussein. The TYPES of resolutions he broke are extreme also, such as using internationally banned chemical weapons on his own subjects, the Kurds. The burning of the oilfields was an ecological disaster.

You comparison then is moot, silly, irrelevent and pointless. It is also a STRAW MAN argument. Regardless of what happened to Israel, the issue is Iraq. The way another nation is treated in no way justifies or condemnes the way Hussein was treated.

<font color=deepskyblue>OK, my mistake for misreading the article. I didn't realize that Blair was still categorically confident that WMD's would be found in Iraq. I think the possibility of them being found still exists, but I also think there is an equal chance that none will be found (because they were either moved before the war or didn't exist in the first place).

As for the Intelligence sources, there have been several stories circulated through the media claiming the stance regarding WMD's was based on Intelligence Info that has - in hindsight - been found to be wrong. You are correct that President Bush hasn't held a formal press conference to announce the Intel was faulty and apologize for it, but the "leaking" of these stories is a way of explaining why the Administration's certainty of WMD's was wrong.

Will Bush give a public apology for the mistake? Not in an election year. Should Bush give an apology after the election?? Not necessarily. While WMD's may have been touted as the primary reason for the invasion, it was NOT the ONLY reason (I believe the official list has 17 items, IIRC). Even if they were wrong about the existence of WMD's, I think they were still justified if they legitimately believed the threat of the WMD's. But even if we completely remove WMD's from the equation, there is no denying that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>An "apologist" is one that defends a doctrine. It could be expanded to say that it is one that defends their position on a subject. So proclaiming yourself in the "attack group" is a rather moot point, in my opinion. It doesn't relieve you of the obligation to defend your views.

<font color=deepskyblue>Yes, I realize that <font color=white>Skunk</font> has a habit of bringing up Israel on a regular basis, regardless of whether the thread is actually about Israel or not.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>What makes bringing up Israel in a thread about Iraq different from bringing up the U.N. is that the conflict in Israel has NO DIRECT CONNECTION to Iraq. The U.N. - on the other hand - DOES have a very direct connection to discussions about Iraq, since they were the ones originally charged with finding the WMD and overseeing their disposal. They were also charged with disciplining Saddam Hussein for his lack of compliance in that effort. Also, many people still feel that the U.S.A. should have let the U.N. handle the situation this time around. So the actions of the U.N. (or lack thereof) are pertinent to the discussion of the War in Iraq - and are especially pertinent in regards to the WMD's (or lack thereof) in Iraq.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>Exactly how does having more than one reason to invade Iraq make it imperitave to draw comparisons to other countries? The only justification for this is to point out that the U.S. has not invaded Israel. Wow, what a surprise! The U.S. has refused to invade a country they consider an ally and have actually fought to help ease sanctions handed down against them by the U.N. Yes, that IS called "self-interest" - and it is practiced by every single country on the globe. You might as well ask why France and Germany didn't invade Spain for supporting the U.S. and the War in Iraq.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>And if my pointing out how completely IN-effective the U.N. is as a whole, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that such criticism is justified. You actually provided a FAR better example of just how ineffective the U.N. is with your list of sanctions against Israel. I believe the final total was 16 sanctions against Iraq compared to 84 sanctions against Israel. But instead of blaming the U.N. for their lack of action on ANY of those sanctions, the blame is still placed squarely on the U.S.A.

The argument that all sanctions against Israel have been reduced to a Chapter 6 level, so that it doesn't require action by the U.N. is a <font color=yellow>Straw Man Argument</font>. Just because action isn't required does not mean that the U.N. wouldn't be justified in pursuing action. Surely a list of 84 sanctions should be justification enough for the U.N. to do SOMETHING!!! But they still sit in their meeting rooms wringing their hands, shaking their fists, and occasionally rattling a sabre here and there. But that is as far as their action ever goes.

One other reason that U.N. hasn't taken any action (and why there is so much blame placed on the U.S.A. for this inaction ) could be because when the U.N. DOES finally get off it's duff and decide to do something, guess who they expect to provide the bulk of the force? Yep, U.S. So when the U.S. says they support Israel and will NOT support action against them, the U.N. is left between the proverbial rock and hard place.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>Careful, <font color=lime>shamrock</font>. I don't want you to break your arm while patting yourself on the back. I didn't answer you charges against Israel because (1) it wasn't pertinent to the discussion, and (2) the rebuttals to comparisons made between Israel and Iraq have been mentioned in several threads. I saw no need to repeat what has been said many times before. But I see that <font color=yellow>Yorick</font> DID post the rebuttals again anyway, so the issue has not been dodged.

But as long as we are talking about dodging issues, you also have not answered the comments I highlighted by David Kay stating that his investigation had found solid evidence that Iraq was engaged in numerous illegal activities. That statement alone provides a measure of justification for the actions taken against them.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>Well, I hate to burst your perception-bubble that all Americans are clueless to the censorship that goes on in our media, but most of us are well aware of that. There have been prolific accusations of the media being controlled by the left-wing. While there are many examples to support this theory, there are several examples of the right wing putting their own spin on stories in publications and broadcasts controlled by those that are sympathetic to that side of the fence also.

"Objective reporting" is non-existent in the U.S.A. anymore. Every publication and news broadcast caters to thier target audience, and the stories they cover are tailored (both in wording and presentation) to the tastes, interests, and political views of that target audience. The self-censorship may, indeed, be "insidious" - but it certainly is NOT a big secret.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>Probably so. Just as your opinion and views about America would probably be different if you grew up here instead of the U.K.</font>

Here's some nuggets to chew on, about stuff found coming out of Iraq.

During last week's visit to Jordan, Perricos told the council that U.N. experts visited "relevant scrapyards" with the full cooperation of Jordanian authorities and discovered 20 SA-2 missile engines.

The U.N. team also discovered some processing equipment with U.N. tags — which show it was being monitored — including heat exchangers, and a solid propellant mixer bowl to make missile fuel, he said. It also discovered "a large number of other processing equipment without tags, in very good condition."
**********Harris Note*********** why didn't these processing equiptment have tags could they have been hidden from the UN inspectors? You know those wonderful UN inspectors that couldn't find anything and said that they didn't know for sure one way or another, yeah those are the guys.

And yet another nugget:
In its quarterly report to the council on Monday, the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission which Perricos heads, said a number of sites in Iraq known to have contained equipment and material that could be used to produce banned weapons and long-range missiles have been cleaned out or destroyed.

The inspectors said they didn't know whether the items, which had been monitored by the United Nations, were at the sites during the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The commission, known as UNMOVIC (search), said it was possible some material was taken by looters and sold as scrap.

UNMOVIC said its experts and a team from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. body responsible for dismantling Iraq's nuclear program, were jointly investigating items from Iraq discovered in a scrapyard in Rotterdam.
**********Harris Note************* Why is the International Atomic Energy Agency investigating this? Could their Giger(sp?) counter have gone off?

<font color="#C4C1CA">
Rubbish. It has everything to do with Israel. It is because of Israel's nuclear stockpile that every other country in the middle east is seeking weapons of mass destruction, or is expected to be seeking them.

Remember that WAR was declared on Iraq on the SUPPOSITION that it had WMD's. War was not declared on Israel despite the actual EVIDENCE that it has and maintains a nuclear stockpile.
</font>

<font color="#C4C1CA">
War is the LAST TOOL OF RESORT of the UN, Cerek, not the first. And the US does not provide the bulk of troops - INDIA PROVIDES THE MOST (and has done for the last TWENTY years), with Germany second and Britain third.

And the first tool of the UN is SANCTIONS - which does not need the US military to implement. And the US is blamed for the failure of those sanctions to be implemented because it casts it veto to prevent them.
</font>

The only WMD in the region are in Israel, Black Baron.
Perhaps we should check there first? </font>[/QUOTE]And Pakistan Skunk. And India Skunk. And Russia Skunk. So quick to point the finger at Israel.

And Skunk, what's your opinion on Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait? What's the commonality between them I wonder? </font>[/QUOTE]And why not point the finger at Israel?

<font color="#C4C1CA">
Rubbish. It has everything to do with Israel. It is because of Israel's nuclear stockpile that every other country in the middle east is seeking weapons of mass destruction, or is expected to be seeking them.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>Rubbish Too. How many times has Israel actually used nuclear weapons against another country? And what countries has Israel threatened (or actually attacked) besides Palestine?

Something you seem to forget is that Israel IS being attacked on a daily basis. These other countries don't want nuclear weapons as a "safeguard" against the threat of Israel. They want them so they can use them against Israel. Israel has never threatened to attack or "wipe out" all the countries around them, but it is a well-known (and well documented) fact that all of the countries around Israel DO want to wipe them out. So it is a blantantly false and ridiculous claim for these countries to say they want nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the threat of Israel.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>"WAR" has not been declared on Israel??? [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] Gee, I bet that's a surprise to them since the citizens there cannot go to the market or get on a bus without facing the very real possibility of being blown up by a Palestinian suicide bomber. Palestinians may not have "officially" declared "War" on Israel, but they have voiced their commitment to wipe Israel out and their actions back up this commitment - so I think it is safe to say that "war" HAS been declared on Israel and is being carried out on a daily basis.

And Israel was not invaded despite the EVIDENCE that it has a nuclear stockpile because - UNLIKE IRAQ - Israel HAS NOT USED those nuclear weapons against other countries despite being under constant attack by another country.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>Really? That's news to me.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>And the SANCTIONS of the U.N. have proven to be largely ineffective.

As for blaming the US for the failure of those sanctions because of their veto, I can only reiterate that the US must carry an awful lot of weight in the U.N. for thier single veto to carry so much power.</font>

Just to bring a bit of clarity to the issue of WMD's, you might like to take a gander here.

It would seem to be in terms of realpolitik it's really no problem for a state to possess WMD's (or the capability to produce them) just so long as it's not a rogue state.

Now, would someone care to explain how the international community should define what exactly constitutes a rogue state?

Probably countries that threaten their neighbours, or have shown acts of aggressiveness in the past, like Iraq and North Korea.

Remarkable in your link is that Ethiopia is one of the suspected holders of weapons of mass destruction. Now there's a country that has a shortage of just about anything, food, water, medical supplies, clothing, you name it.... but hey.... at least they have weapons of mass destruction. :rolleyes:

Now why in gods name would a broke ass country like Ethiopia need WoMD's ? What exactly was the government thinking when they purchased them ?

The reason? The civil war that caused the famine in the first place Johnny.

And Pakistan Skunk. And India Skunk. And Russia Skunk. So quick to point the finger at Israel.

And Skunk, what's your opinion on Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait? What's the commonality between them I wonder? </font>[/QUOTE]And why not point the finger at Israel? </font>[/QUOTE]Did you bother to read the post I was replying to? That would be four nations in the area with nuclear weapons, not the one Skunk was so quick to (as usual) try and isolatingly point out.

Truth. Well said. Factual and intelligent opinion about those facts Cerek. Well said.

Cerek, how many of the nations that declared war on Israel actually signed peace treaties? I know Egypt did, and Egypt got Sinai back. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda and various other Palestinian, Syrian, Jordanian, and other Arabic groups are certainly at war with Israel. Israel are in a constant state of war.

Again however, you show remarkable grasp on what the matters in the area actually are, compared to what's often presented.

<font color=deepskyblue>Really? That's news to me.</font></font>[/QUOTE]I wonder if there is any proof of this? Would make a nice post. Proof to back up unusual assertions. What a concept.

<font color=deepskyblue>And the SANCTIONS of the U.N. have proven to be largely ineffective.

As for blaming the US for the failure of those sanctions because of their veto, I can only reiterate that the US must carry an awful lot of weight in the U.N. for thier single veto to carry so much power.</font> [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Cuba anyone? Those annoying Americans. Invading Cuba while the rest of the world argued for sanctions. And Iraq too. Those French Russian and Chinese were so addamant about not doing business with Iraq. And all the while the USA ignored what sanctions could do. Tsk tsk.

http://www.factmonster.com/spot/un1.html

Ooh Look. These people disagree with you. Have you heard of Pakistan? They have nuclear weapons. And, they were the largest UN peacekeer contributors in 2001 with over 4,000 personelle.

However the United States appeared to FUND 27% of peacekeeping costs in 2003

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...#Peace-keeping
Manpower alone does not win a war. Tanks? Planes? Guns? All conveniently forgotten it seems. So too the US position on arrears.

[ 06-10-2004, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Exactly. I remember reading how Palestinian leaders stated that if Israel would scrap its weapons program, they'd love to enjoy a rousing round of Kumbaya with their Jewish neighbors. I remember Syria saying that while they liked Israelis, the Israeli nuke program forced them to compete in an arms race. Boy, skunk, thanks for solving the world's problems for us once again.

Lebanon in 82. Egypt & Syria (although I will admit they aren't examples of unwarranted Israeli aggression, but they are other countries that have been attacked by Israel). Iraq. I'll think of a couple more no doubt.

Very valid points. However it is perhaps only natural that when the casualties are so one-sided and the war of defence so preemptive in nature that some people would view Israel as an aggressive state.

I also suspect that the close proximity of Israel's enemies in a geographical sense would make the firing of nuclear weapons somewhat hazardous for the Israeli citizens.
<font color=deepskyblue>Really? That's news to me.</font></font>[/QUOTE]Innacurate, but the general thrust is correct re. the small American contribution. As of April 2004, according to the UN summary of Civilian Police, Troops, and Military Observers the [total] numbers are (just a comparative selection)

United States = 562
India = 2,930

But we can compare with:

United Kingdom = 550
Zambia = 933
South Africa = 1,460
Senegal = 1,037
Nepal = 2,290
Mali = 298
Morocco = 858
Kenya = 1,826
Jordan = 1,804

The largest contributor is Pakistan with 7,680, closely followed by Bangladesh with 6,362.

Perhaps most suprising are countries like:
Ethiopia = 1,882
Kenya = 1,826
Ghana = 2,790
Nigeria = 3,398
Uruguay = 1,883


<font color=deepskyblue>And the SANCTIONS of the U.N. have proven to be largely ineffective.

As for blaming the US for the failure of those sanctions because of their veto, I can only reiterate that the US must carry an awful lot of weight in the U.N. for thier single veto to carry so much power.</font> [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]To respond jointly to this, and your earlier criticism about me blaming the US for UN failures:

It's not a question of 'weight', that's the whole point of the Veto. The US veto carries just as much weight as the UK veto or the French veto, just we don't use it often. It's far easier to block something (as the US does all the time) than it is to get things going (as you found over Iraq) but all you experienced there was the French doing what everybody else has to put up with all the time from America.

The US owns the UN, it carries immense weight, more than any other and naturally seeks to dominate it. An analysis of the UN without taking into account US behaviour is meaningless. It would be like teaching anatomy with half the organs missing. Therefore when the UN fails to act because of US veto, criticism of the UN by a mis-informed public is unjustified in my opinion.

Surely the American opinion can best express my point:

The very success or failure of the UN as an organization rests on its ability to fulfill American interests. After the UN blocked America's war on Saddam, we hear how the UN is "no longer relevent" and "product of a previous era" etc etc. The American's define the very success of the UN by its ability to implement US policy and this more than anything shows why an analysis of the UN (and subsequent complaints over inaction) have to include the US to be meaningful.

For the rest of the world, the UN did not falter in the face of US pressure and therefore is not seen to have failed. The inability of the UN to prevent America attacking Iraq is seen more as a function of unilateral behaviour by the superpower than a failure of the UN. When a country is seen as uncontrallable (the true definition of a rogue state?) then naturally nobody is particularly suprised when the UN cannot control it, and indeed, i doubt many expected it to be able to.

As a slight note, thanks for your earlier reply Cerek and also for keeping it civil. I've just re-read my last sentence (the 'desk' one) and it does sound a bit unecessarily 'acidic', so my apologies for that.

[ 06-10-2004, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]