Iraqi is NOT co-operating in a substantive manner.

[Ronn_Bman]

I think Mr. Blix has laid it out. "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, even today, of the disarmament demanded of them." Iraq has complied procedurally(opening doors), but not substantively.

Iraq has not accounted for up to 1,000 tons of VX nerve agent.

Iraq has not accounted for anthrax produced.

Iraq has not accounted for thousands of chemical delivery devices other than the 11 that were found by the inspectors at a site built after the inspectors were withdrawn in '98, and an additional 4 that were found by an Iraqi committee. That's 15 out of 38,000.

Iraq has developed not one, but two new missiles with ranges greater than 150k, in direct violation of the UN. Iraq has purchased 300 engines for these missiles and has already armed their military with some of them.

Mr. Blix says the Iraqi's are not co-operating substantively, but the Iraqi's say they are co-operating.

The Iraqi leader of their version of the Senate says today’s report was a success because nothing has been found. Mr. Blix has said time and time again that it is not the inspectors job to find anything, it is the Iraqi's job to disclose.

He also complained of the treatment of the inspectors on various occassions and of the Iraqi refusal to gaurantee the safety of U2 fly overs by the UN.

[ 01-27-2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I think Mr. Blix has laid it out. "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, even today, of the disarmament demanded of them." Iraq has complied procedurally(opening doors), but not substantively. Iraq has not accounted for up to 1,000 tons of VX nerve agent. Iraq has not accounted for anthrax produced. Iraq has not accounted for thousands of chemical delivery devices other than the 11 that were found by the inspectors at a site built after the inspectors were withdrawn in '98, and an additional 4 that were found by an Iraqi committee. That's 15 out of 38,000. Iraq has developed not one, but two new missiles with ranges greater than 150k, in direct violation of the UN. Iraq has purchased 300 engines for these missiles and has already armed their military with some of them. Mr. Blix says the Iraqi's are not co-operating substantively, but the Iraqi's say they are co-operating. The Iraqi leader of their version of the Senate says today’s report was a success because nothing has been found. Mr. Blix has said time and time again that it is not the inspectors job to find anything, it is the Iraqi's job to disclose. He also complained of the treatment of the inspectors on various occassions and of the Iraqi refusal to gaurantee the safety of U2 fly overs by the UN.

Get With Tha Bling Brotha! TESTIFAH!
Why should it?
If you look at all the warlike rhetoric the Bush Administration has been putting out, you can see this is going to be like bombing Libya again. Or the Gulf of Tonkin Incident where the Us president Invented documents, gave em to the CIA and then went an invaded a country on false pretexts.

With the bombing of Libya, there was NO PROOF that libya was involved. Yet Raygun had it done anyway (was it anything to do with Gadaffis nationiseling the oil industry... Nah couldn’t be right?)

Besdies, How many tons of VX do America and Britain have?
How many nuclear bombs do they have?
How much anthrax?
Can you say hypocrisy…
Knew you could!

Bush is going to war so as to Realease that oil in the hope of boosting a faltering economy no matter what anyone else thinks about it, At least that what he hopes to.

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: With the bombing of Libya, there was NO PROOF that libya was involved. Yet Raygun had it done anyway (was it anything to do with Gadaffis nationiseling the oil industry... Nah couldn’t be right?) I was involved with that little mission you are spewing bullshit about Eisen, so let me say, quit flappin your gums about something you don't know shit about. It was no coincidence that after old Quadaffi (pick a spelling, even the intelligence agencies couldnt decide) survived a coupleof near misses there was a sudden and immediate halt to terrorist bombings around the med for a while and that no more americans were killed by terrorists in the med region either. If this seems like strong language, well tough, I lost good friends in that mission and some of those deaths were due to our own allies not allowing us to over fly their air space. Besdies, How many tons of VX do America and Britain have? How many nuclear bombs do they have? How much anthrax? Can you say hypocrisy… Knew you could! When was the last time any of those countries used any of those items? or allowed others to use them? Buffoon..can you spell it? Bush is going to war so as to Realease that oil in the hope of boosting a faltering economy no matter what anyone else thinks about it, At least that what he hopes to. France, Egypt and Russia will get the oil not the USA, they are after all the ones with billions in trade deals with Iraq right now....of course you will ignore that as you do with all details.

[ 01-27-2003, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Gosh, Eisenschwarz, again with the oil. Every time that is brought up we all go trot out some info to shoot you down and explain the silliness of it. But, you insist and persist.

I don't think I'll bother this time. Suffice to say I believed this until I educated myself on it. Suffice to say I hate big SUVs and oil industry proliferation, but that does not make it true that the US is going to Iraq over oil.

Given Bush's proclivities as an oil industry supporter and wonk (imagine, something Bush is a wonk on), here's what he'd do:
1. Fabricate a reason why America can't get (enough) oil elsewhere;
2. Tap national resources of oil as an emergency act;
3. Set price limits on imported oil and tax exported oil, which would fit the national security exception to the WTO/GATT and would allow the US to act as a price-fixer nationally and internationally.

Your argument simply does not hold water. Yet you persist. And persist. At this point its a soundbyte that sounds vaguely like Charlie Brown's teacher to me.

[Ronn_Bman]

Eisen, can you say, "didn't address the issue?"

Can you say, "dodging"?

I knew you could, because you always do.

What about what Mr. Blix said today? I only pointed out some highlights without adding commentary, so you can take your bling, my bro-thah and.... Well actually I'm sure you know exactly what to do with it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

No comment on the Inspectors statement today? You know more than he does? Just an excuse for another anti-US rant? Imagine that, our very own Dramnek ignoring the point of a post and using it as an anti-US platform!

Damn! What are the odds of some freaky crap like that happening over and over again? [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

I don't think I've ever seen you actually post about an issue in question. You always post a history based US comparison, or the, "well tommy has a BB gun why can't the murderer down the street have one to kill my sister with?

Are you unable to speak about current events in a current context? Can you only speak on an issue by bringing up Pinochet et al ? Can you actually say how you feel about the current situation without going 30 years(or @15 years this time which I must admit is as up to date as I've ever seen you) into the past for reference? Can you, because you've never done it here?

Dramnek, based on your strong convictions, have you ever considered traveling to Iraq to become a human shield? I've got some frequent flier miles I'm not doing anything with, and we can take up an offering to make the difference in cash needed. [img]smile.gif[/img]

EDIT - Despite the smilies, that last comment was too rude. Instead of deleting, in case someone saw it, I will apologize.

[ 01-27-2003, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Originally posted by MagiK: I was involved with that little mission you are spewing bullshit about Eisen, so let me say, quit flappin your gums about something you don't know shit about. It was no coincidence that after old Quadaffi (pick a spelling, even the intelligence agencies couldnt decide) survived a coupleof near misses there was a sudden and immediate halt to terrorist bombings around the med for a while and that no more americans were killed by terrorists in the med region either. If this seems like strong language, well tough, I lost good friends in that mission and some of those deaths were due to our own allies not allowing us to over fly their air space.

In 1986 president raygun claimed that Tripoli was behind the bombing of a West Berlin discotheque visited by American servicemen.
The US Government HAS STILL NOT PROVIDED ANY PROOF TO BACK THIS UP.
Until they do therefore, IT must be considered an act of unwarrented international agression.
An Act of Terror no less, Also please spare a thought for the 40 innocent libyans killed by US terror raids. (

Originally posted by MagiK: When was the last time any of those countries used any of those items? or allowed others to use them? Buffoon..can you spell it? Well, They THREATEN TO USE THEM! Amnerica talks about how it cannot rule out useing nukes against iraq. A bit hypocritical no? Bush is going to war so as to Realease that oil in the hope of boosting a faltering economy no matter what anyone else thinks about it, At least that what he hopes to. quote: Originally posted by MagiK: France, Egypt and Russia will get the oil not the USA, they are after all the ones with billions in trade deals with Iraq right now....of course you will ignore that as you do with all details.[/qb]

[/QB][/QUOTE]Whoah! Thanks for informing me, Even Europe Is a bastion of self interest and hypocrisy.
Central to the Bush agenda is the fear an Iraq armed with nuclear weapons could dominated, or hold hostage a region through which flows an estimated 30 percent of the world's oil and natural gas.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Gosh, Eisenschwarz, again with the oil. Every time that is brought up we all go trot out some info to shoot you down and explain the silliness of it. But, you insist and persist.

"Explain the silliness of it"? That sounds very like a subjective veiwpoint to me. HTH.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I don't think I'll bother this time. Suffice to say I believed this until I educated myself on it. Suffice to say I hate big SUVs and oil industry proliferation, but that does not make it true that the US is going to Iraq over oil.

Ah, You're coping out. TIA.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Given Bush's proclivities as an oil industry supporter and wonk (imagine, something Bush is a wonk on), here's what he'd do: 1. Fabricate a reason why America can't get (enough) oil elsewhere; 2. Tap national resources of oil as an emergency act; 3. Set price limits on imported oil and tax exported oil, which would fit the national security exception to the WTO/GATT and would allow the US to act as a price-fixer nationally and internationally. Your argument simply does not hold water. Yet you persist. And persist. At this point its a soundbyte that sounds vaguely like Charlie Brown's teacher to me.

You do know that one of the most important thing in an economy is confidence right?
Banks operate on the principle of confidence; If people are not confident they all rush to get out their money at the same time and the banks (And economy) collapses, Look at South America for many good Examples.

And so critical to market stability and confidence is the availability of other sources of oil since our economy is based on oil.
What Bush wants is something to get him re-elected, Now Perhaps if he wages a war and wins this might work, or maybe he can open up somehow Since Iraq has a known reserve of more than 112 Billion barrels, Now if all the oil becomes much more easily availed, (A Pro-american and/or Co-operative goverment could work wonders on this)
oil prices should fall, and confidence will increase thus aiding the restoration of the America economy and bushes Chances, Remember how important the economy is too the voters.

Iraq Has Biliions of Dollars worth of oil to be pumped out, But To do that you need political stability and a free platform for coperations to contest and compete for it and then eventully extract it. All five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council Russia, China, France, Britain and the United States have oil companies with a stake in who rules Iraq.

HAND.

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Eisen, can you say, "didn't address the issue?" Can you say, "dodging"? I knew you could, because you always do. What about what Mr. Blix said today? I only pointed out some highlights without adding commentary, so you can take your bling, my bro-thah and.... Well actually I'm sure you know exactly what to do with it.

Well, No I don't, Not really. |
What Should I do with it?

OTH, It doesn't matter what the inspectors say does it?
Bush is going to have his little war no matter what.

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: No comment on the Inspectors statement today? You know more than he does? Just an excuse for another anti-US rant? Imagine that, our very own Dramnek ignoring the point of a post and using it as an anti-US platform! Damn! What are the odds of some freaky crap like that happening over and over again? I don't think I've ever seen you actually post about an issue in question. You always post a history based US comparison, or the, "well tommy has a BB gun why can't the murderer down the street have one to kill my sister with? Are you unable to speak about current events in a current context? Can you only speak on an issue by bringing up Pinochet et al ? Can you actually say how you feel about the current situation without going 30 years(or @15 years this time which I must admit is as up to date as I've ever seen you) into the past for reference? Can you, because you've never done it here?

You can’t judge things independent of the historical or materiel context,
What If we tried to analyse the russian revolution without looking at what caused it?
The US government has never done things because of what’s “good” or “Right” instead it has always acted with self interest and has many times had the blood of innocents on it’s hands.
Why should this change now?
A country (The USA) that has invented pretexts for war before (gulf of Tonkin), it has made unwarranted acts of aggression (bay of pigs, Libya)
and cannot necessarily be trusted now.
If a man lied to you, would you consider him capable of lying again?

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Dramnek, based on your strong convictions, have you ever considered traveling to Iraq to become a human shield? I've got some frequent flier miles I'm not doing anything with, and we can take up an offering to make the difference in cash needed. EDIT - Despite the smilies, that last comment was too rude. Instead of deleting, in case someone saw it, I will apologize.

The people who travel to Iraq to act as human sheilds are demonstrateing such a respect for human life that they are willing to die to prevent war (which will of course kill innocents as in afghanistan Etc), Compare that to the warmongering demonstrated by bush.

HTH.TIA.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: quote: OTH, It doesn't matter what the inspectors say does it? Bush is going to have his little war no matter what. Well, Mr Bling-Bling, that wasn't what I posted now was it? I posted some highlights of Mr. Blix's report to the UN, and you decided to post more anti US rhetoric.

You can’t judge things independent of the historical or materiel context,

Dramnek, you appear to be unable to speak at all without putting something in a US historical context.

The US government has never done things because of what’s “good” or “Right” instead it has always acted with self interest and has many times had the blood of innocents on it’s hands.
Why should this change now?

What nation doesn't act in it's own self-interest? What nation is good and right?

What nation has based their policy on what is good and right while ignoring the interests of its population?

What nation hasn't had the blood of innocents on it's hands?

Do you ever learn about those or do you only take US history classes?

A country (The USA) that has invented pretexts for war before (gulf of Tonkin), it has made unwarranted acts of aggression (bay of pigs, Libya)
and cannot necessarily be trusted now.

And that has exactly what to do with Mr. Blix's report? Was he in on those things? What about the problems he found in Iraq? That's what the post was about, but of course, your only response to that was "what does it matter" and then you go on an anti-US rant. Typical Dramnek.

The people who travel to Iraq to act as human sheilds are demonstrateing such a respect for human life that they are willing to die to prevent war (which will of course kill innocents as in afghanistan Etc), Compare that to the warmongering demonstrated by bush.

HTH.TIA.[/QUOTE]The people who travel to Iraq to act as shields are certainly brave and absolutely believe in their position, but unfortunately they are as much Saddam shields as war shields. By the reasoning I've seen you use, if they actually prevent the war and save Saddam won't they be responsible for anything he does? Any deaths he causes?

Back to one of your original points about other nations having VX. You say why shouldn't Saddam have VX and antrax, too. Obviously you don't care if he has these items and more and you don't care if everyone has them and uses them and you wouldn't care if he or the leader of any group uses them, but that's on your conscious.

DYAAFI.RYA

[ 01-28-2003, 06:52 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ar-Cunin]

To get the discussion back on track

The question is whether the infringement listed by Hans Blix constitute a material breach of resulution 1441. This will be debated by the Secuerity Council today (behind closed doors - are they hinding something? )

Iraq have already promised complete future co-operation - exceot on two counts. They will not allow U2 spyplanes to overfly Iraq nor will they 'force' scientist to be interrogated without Iraqi representatives being present.