mudcat.org: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]


BS: NON-Partisan political comments

beardedbruce 06 Apr 06 - 06:26 AM
beardedbruce 05 Apr 06 - 11:27 AM
Arne 05 Apr 06 - 11:24 AM
beardedbruce 05 Apr 06 - 06:18 AM
Arne 31 Mar 06 - 01:18 AM
beardedbruce 30 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM
beardedbruce 30 Mar 06 - 11:56 AM
GUEST,TIA 30 Mar 06 - 11:52 AM
Little Hawk 30 Mar 06 - 11:49 AM
beardedbruce 30 Mar 06 - 11:47 AM
Little Hawk 30 Mar 06 - 11:45 AM
Little Hawk 30 Mar 06 - 11:38 AM
beardedbruce 30 Mar 06 - 11:36 AM
Little Hawk 30 Mar 06 - 11:24 AM
beardedbruce 30 Mar 06 - 10:22 AM
Little Hawk 30 Mar 06 - 10:16 AM
beardedbruce 30 Mar 06 - 09:32 AM
beardedbruce 30 Mar 06 - 09:03 AM
beardedbruce 30 Mar 06 - 08:42 AM
beardedbruce 30 Mar 06 - 08:40 AM
Arne 29 Mar 06 - 10:56 PM
Arne 29 Mar 06 - 09:57 PM
beardedbruce 29 Mar 06 - 08:28 AM
Arne 28 Mar 06 - 09:52 PM
beardedbruce 28 Mar 06 - 07:56 AM
beardedbruce 24 Mar 06 - 08:48 AM
beardedbruce 24 Mar 06 - 08:05 AM
beardedbruce 24 Mar 06 - 06:49 AM
beardedbruce 24 Mar 06 - 06:34 AM
beardedbruce 16 Mar 06 - 07:02 AM
beardedbruce 16 Mar 06 - 06:57 AM
Arne 15 Mar 06 - 02:14 PM
beardedbruce 15 Mar 06 - 01:35 PM
Arne 20 Feb 06 - 09:08 PM
beardedbruce 20 Feb 06 - 06:21 AM
autolycus 18 Feb 06 - 05:04 PM
Ron Davies 18 Feb 06 - 08:28 AM
Teribus 18 Feb 06 - 04:54 AM
Arne 17 Feb 06 - 08:58 PM
beardedbruce 17 Feb 06 - 06:34 AM
autolycus 17 Feb 06 - 05:20 AM
Arne 16 Feb 06 - 09:39 PM
beardedbruce 15 Feb 06 - 10:19 AM
Arne 15 Feb 06 - 10:05 AM
beardedbruce 15 Feb 06 - 09:47 AM
freda underhill 21 Jan 06 - 10:29 AM
Arne 20 Jan 06 - 04:45 PM
beardedbruce 20 Jan 06 - 01:31 PM
Arne 19 Jan 06 - 05:57 PM
Arne 19 Jan 06 - 05:28 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 06:26 AM

Sorry, Arnie- I did start the thread, but it has been removed...

You have been given my response, yet keep insisting on the lie that Saddam HAD complied with UNR1441- If the UN is not a valid source for you, I guess there can be no discussion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 11:27 AM

Arnie,

See the thread I will start.

Cheers


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 11:24 AM

IOW, Bruce has no response, and is going to ignore me. Imagine that.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 06:18 AM

back to thread topic- (I think the last post exceeded the allowed size)

From Little Hawk

"Science and advanced religion are natural allies. They ask the same great questions: What is life? Where did it come from? Where did we come from? What is our nature and the nature of other things around us? Why do things function as they do? How can we improve what we see around us? How can we achieve greater things? How can we be happy? "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 01:18 AM

BeardedBruce:

[Arne, quoting from Bruce's proffered link]: "the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq."

Never said they were, JUST THAT THE UN DECLARED SADDAM WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE with 1441, his LAST AND FINAL chance.

Ummmm, Brucie: I'm quoting from the link you provided as evidence that "THE UN DECLARED SADDAM WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE with 1441, his LAST AND FINAL chance" (or alternatively that "the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and [Bruce gave] a clicky to it so that all can read it and see."), and I did this to show that these links are far from frinedly to your point of view, and in fact can be taken as evidence against the assertion you claim they support. In fact, I did that repeatedly, just so the cognitively challenged such as (mainly) you might start to catch on. And I pointed out that some of the links you gave didn't use "material breach" much at all, and only once as an assertion, and that they mentioned "substantial non-compliance" not at all). But the cure is yours, Brucie: You can go into those links and show where they say "THE UN DECLARED SADDAM WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE with 1441, his LAST AND FINAL chance".

Read what has been said, not wwhat you want to see.

Ummm, that's what I was doing. And I just quoted it right back at you. Maybe you ought to read (and post excerpts from, if you find any helpful) the links you're providing.

"IF Iraq chose to cooperate fully, as required. It was a challenge to the Council and an affront to the international community that Iraq was withholding full cooperation. "

Ummm, that "IF" there is Blix's assessment at that time as to whether "the period of disarmament through inspections could be 'short'". So what's the opposite of "short", Brucie?

[from Brucie's third link]: "Similarly, the representative of Canada said that more time for inspections could be useful, but only IF Iraq decided to cooperate fully and transparently, starting now. While that cooperation was beginning, it was being offered grudgingly and only after intense pressure and the deliberate build-up of MILITARY FORCES in the region."

Oh, you snipped the rest of this paragraph, Brucie: "To make clear to Iraq what was expected, the Council must lay out a list of key remaining disarmament tasks and establish an early deadline for compliance. That would allow the international community to judge whether Iraq was cooperating on substance, and not just on process."

IOW, the Canadians, favourable to the idea that Saddam's co-operation was somewhat lacking, also were of the opinion that clear and definitive milestones should be laid out to measure whether co-operation was in fact coming and if progress was being made. Hardly sounds like they thought a "last and final chance" had been used up.

Yes, Brucie, a threat of military force seems to have done the trick. But the way this kind of s*** works is: You say, "Gimme my rent, or I'll blow your kneecaps off", while cocking your .45 auto. Then the person gives you the rent money and you leave; you're happy and he's happy (he's alive), and eveyone else on the street is prompt on their rent as well. Works wonders even if the ethics may be a little shady. But it doesn't work if he gives you the money, and you tell him it was in the wrong colour of envelope, or he didn't turn all the bills the same way, or he didn't kiss your rosy while handing it over, and then you pop him one anyways. See, then, he's an angry cripple, you're a bullying a$$hole, and the neighbours don't see any purpose in paying up on time because you're gonna pop them no matter what they do. Matter if fact, they may even think about getting guns themselves....

So why'd you snip the Indonesian's comments, Brucie? Because they said that "the objectives of resolution 1441 could still be met"? Doesn't exactly fit your storyline here, so no wonder you ignore it. But the Indonesians' view of the Iraq situation is just as germane to the (supposed) "U.N. position" as is the view of Canada, Norway, or the U.S. They're all members of that body. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, Mr. "Bruce" Phelps, is to find where the U.N. decides as a democratic deliberative body, that "SADDAM WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE with 1441, his LAST AND FINAL chance". Views of individual members count only as their own.

As for "but I know you don't give a damn about them or their families, Brucie...."

The blood is on the hands of those, like yyou, who DID NOT DEMAND THAT SADDAM COMPLY, but instead did all they could to lead him to believe that he could get away with continued violation, as he had for 14 years. LOOK at who was making money off the violations of sanctions, and who voted against holding Saddam to the terms of 1441.

Ummm, who didn't demand that Saddam comply? The Europeans were all over it, begging Saddam to do everything, anything, even kissing Dubya's a$$ if asked, so war could be avoided. And Saddam did do a hell of a lot (for a sovereign nation) to "comply" as best he could. In fact, his compliance with the required documentation was about as good as he could do, and the accuracy of this document, dissed and dismissed by Dubya and company, was far better than the U.S. presentation to the U.N.. You do agree with that, don't you? So instead of talking about whether Dubya thought that Saddam was complying (when Dubya was a doofus, ignoramus, and first-class jerk), why not talk about whether he actually was complying? Your real problem with the "tu quoque" you're asserting above is that the facts prove that the sanctions did work, and that Saddam was complying with the restrictions on WoMD. Even before the threat of military force!

But just one curious question, Brucie: Who did (in your hallucinatory imagination) "vote against holding Saddam to the terms of 1441"? Just curious, you know....

Second thought, another curious question: Who's making money off the occupation? Hmmmm?

""But he toowk a more positive line than in his report two weeks ago, "
WELL AFTER THE DEADLINE FOR COOPERATION IN 1441- see note above about Saddam only cooperating AFTER the military buildup.

What "deadline"? He met the deadline for the documentation. And he was letting the inspectors do their jobs. What makes you think that a "military buildup" done by the U.S. unilaterally is some kind of U.N. "deadline"? If you think your links prove that the U.N. declared he missed a deadline, feel free to quote the specific language from your links that state this, so we can all stand back in amazement.

[Arne]: "First link: Date Nov. 8, 2002"
[Arne]: "Second link: Date Nov. 8, 2002 (and a repeat of the first one)"

If you show no comprehension of what 1441 says, it is reasonable to present it to you before discussing the failure of Saddam to comply with it.

I'm not interested in UNSCR 1441 declaring Saddam in violation of previous resolutions. I'm interested in the U.N. declaring that he was in "material breach" or "substantial non-compliance" with UNSCR 1441 (something that was pointed out to him would be met with "serious consequences"). And to my mind, the gravamen of UNSCR 1441 was that Saddam disarm any WoMD (and do so to the satisfaction of the U.N.) But that he was doing (and would have completed had Junior not started crossing his legs and squirming too much). If just the fact of non-compliance with U.N. resolutions (historical or otherwise) is enough justification for any other county to unilaterally invade, then you'd agree that any Arab state (or even Upper Phlogistan, if they feel like it) should be able to invade (or attempt to invade) Israel for its longterm disregard for the requirements of far more U.N. resolutions than Iraq. Right???

"Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991)....

See above comment.

... By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations....

The inspections began. And Saddam gave over the documents required. In fact, UNSCR 1441 also required that any member states having information pertinent to the matter turn that information over to the inspectors. But the U.S. balked on that, refusing to give the inspectors the specifics of this information until much later (and only under duress) ... and when the U.N. inspectors finally got the information, they did try to check it out, and termed it "garbage, garbage, and more garbage". So if we're talking contempt of the U.N, shouldn't we invade ourselves?

... Under the new inspection regime established by the resolution, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites and buildings in Iraq, including presidential sites. They would also have the right to remove or destroy any weapons, or related items, they found....

And they got it. They checked under the palaces for the "bio-labs" the U.S. said were there (and followed many other wild-goose chases after U.S. "intelligence"). And came up with zip.

... The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment."

Yep. Did that. As I said, a much more accurate (and timely) report than the U.S. gave.

[Arne]: "Endless repetition of the same ol' crap is not any kind of proof"

THIS I can agree with- so when will you show me where Saddam COMPLIED with 1441??????

Ummm, it's your assertion (that the U.N. said that Saddam didn't comply). Don't try to shift the burder of production to me. But as I've noted (and as your lying eyes told you, with TV of Blix on the ground, the documentary evidence of the Iraqi weapons report, the video clips of the al Samouds being destroyed, etc.), Saddam did comply.

But did not prove it, nor comply with the inspection requirements until military force was brought into play....

Funny. I thought that the U.S. insisted the U.N. inspectors get out of Baghdad before the U.S. invasion, not that they insisted that the U.N. inspectors be let in after the invasion. Guess we live on different worlds, Brucie. Perhaps universes.

AS FAR AS the UN, the US, the EU, and anyone wlse you ask was concerned, he was still working on them, whether he had them in place or not.

Nope. Many thought he may have them (some thought wrongly that he did), but when the evidence on the ground showed that there was little if anything there, and that the U.S. "intelligence" and their repeated assertions before the U.N. and elsewhere was "garbage, garbage, and more garbage", many had a more sceptical and jaundiced view towards pulling the trigger. Which is why Dubya would have failed to get the U.N. to go along and agree with Dubya that Saddam had blown hos chance and needed to be invaded (despite Dubya's promise to force such a vote, a promise he later reneged on).

Would you say that we should not have gone into Germany in WWII because Hitler had NOT conquered the world, as he stated was his intention? Or admit that sometimes force is needed to prevent a greater problem?

Totally stoopid attempt at an analogy. But right off the pages of the RNC "spin points" (and the propaganda campaigns of the likes of Rummy and Condi).

It was a judgement call as to whether Iraq qualified: BUT there were points on both sides, and the dismissal of the reasons TO attack seems unwarrented by what was know ( or thought) at the time.

To morons, if I may say so. But (not surprisingly) a large percentage of people around the entire world are not morons. Sorry to hear about your handicap, Brucie. But: "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!"

READ the reports that were being used: IF they were false, Saddam had a large hand in trying to make the world think that he was more dangerous than he was.

A different point (and another RNC "talking point"). One I'll disagree with. I think I hear it mostly from people trying to justify why they were so freakin' wrong. The main "evidence" (if you can call it that) for the many horrible WoMDs that Saddam supposedly had came from maladministration hawks with their own agenda (and secret purposes; Google "PNAC" [and add in "Netanyahu" and "Bamford" for some really fun stuff]) ... and from Chalabi's INC thugs (that even Clinton's CIA thought were useless). Unless you can show that Saddam was in cahoots with Libby, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Chalabi's INC, you're full'o'it.

If someone tells a policeman "I have a gun", the policeman can shoot (when needed) without being accused of attacking an unarmed man- even if the person was lying.

Saddam did nothing of the sort. You're just being dishonest here. A little confession is good for the soul, Brucie.

With WMD such as biological agents, ANYONE is a real threat.

Oh. Like the U.S., you mean????

When someone is making threats, has shown in the past to be willing to carry out those threats, and appears to have all the materials to carry out those threats, would YOU consider that he should just be ignored until he carries those threats out? You need to come live in a target zone for a while...

Hmmmmmm. *searching fuzzy folds of long-term memory* Ummmmmm. Yeaaaahhh. That's right, Brucie! There is one country that has positively demonstrated the will to use nuclear weapons (the really big threat that such as Cheney, Dubya, and Rice kept harping on), that is known to possess such, and in fact has even talked recently about maybe using them under the right circumstances. Now who could that be? On the tip of my tongue....

I do not regard the idea of NOT enforcing the terms of the 1991 cease-fire as being even remotely reasonable.

I don't regard you as "being even remotely reasonable". Guess we're even.

Say, why did Dubya think he'd have to produce a "provocation" (that U-2 scheme you've studiously ignored) in order to be able to go to war? Doesn't say much for your case for war when even your hero thought he had to "game" the system....

I'll be looking for those quotes from U.S. resolutions declaring Saddam in "substantial non-compliance" with UNSCR 1441. But I promise you I won't hold my breath.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM

I do not regard the idea of NOT enforcing the terms of the 1991 cease-fire as being even remotely reasonable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:56 AM

crossposted...


So, what do you think would have happened if Saddam had opened his borders, NOT tried to use military force against the coallition, and declared Iraq to be an open country- and allowed meaningfull inspections?

We will never know, since he CHOOSE TO NOT COMPLY with UN1441.


With WMD such as biological agents, ANYONE is a real threat.

When someone is making threats, has shown in the past to be willing to carry out those threats, and appears to have all the materials to carry out those threats, would YOU consider that he should just be ignored until he carries those threats out? You need to come live in a target zone for a while...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:52 AM

Silly analogy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:49 AM

I do not regard that as an even remotely valid analogy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:47 AM

So, if you see a policeman catching a criminal violating the law, you would tell the POLICEMAN to stop what he was doing because someone might get hurt, and the criminal would not listen to you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:45 AM

I think you just can't admit to the possibility that the US administration knew very well all along that Saddam was no threat, but simply pretended he was, because they had other reasons for wanting to invade Iraq.

I remember when the Iraqis dismantled those not very formidable short range missiles they had...and were bitter about it. What a joke. It was pathetic. They could have done anything, complied with anything, and they would still have been invaded. The decision had already been made way in advance by Washington and the UK, the rest was just phony PR to make it look good to the public.

Hitler was a real threat. Saddam was not. He couldn't even defeat Iran in the 80's, and he got a lot of outside help in the form of high tech weapons to do that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:38 AM

The reason there weren't significant mass demonstrations against Saddam over here, BB, was that Saddam was no real danger to anyone over here, and he had no jurisdiction here against which to demonstrate or which could presumably be influenced by such a demonstration, so what would be the point? ;-)

People demonstrate against something that matters, not something that doesn't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:36 AM

But did not prove it, nor comply with the inspection requirements until military force was brought into play. AS FAR AS the UN, the US, the EU, and anyone wlse you ask was concerned, he was still working on them, whether he had them in place or not.

Would you say that we should not have gone into Germany in WWII because Hitler had NOT conquered the world, as he stated was his intention? Or admit that sometimes force is needed to prevent a greater problem?

It was a judgement call as to whether Iraq qualified: BUT there were points on both sides, and the dismissal of the reasons TO attack seems unwarrented by what was know ( or thought) at the time. READ the reports that were being used: IF they were false, Saddam had a large hand in trying to make the world think that he was more dangerous than he was. If someone tells a policeman "I have a gun", the policeman can shoot (when needed) without being accused of attacking an unarmed man- even if the person was lying.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:24 AM

It was a crisis about nothing. He had no weapons of mass destruction.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:22 AM

Much like Canada, shipping asbestos out to kill asians.


"This Iraq War was unnecessary, unprovoked, unjustified,"

This is a JUDGEMENT that some of us do not agree with. And how many demonstrations demanding that Saddam comply with the UN did YOU see?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:16 AM

Slick lawyers can always find some legal excuse with which to justify a war, but try justifying it to the millions of people who are in the line of fire.

This Iraq War was unnecessary, unprovoked, unjustified, and it was launched upon incorrect assumptions, largely false conclusions, and largely false propaganda...for reasons that were never publicly admitted by the US administration.

The Security Council is treated (and quoted) as if it were God by America when it agrees with what America wants...and treated with complete contempt and dismissal when it does not. America has no respect for the U.N. (or anyone else), it just uses the U.N. as a covenient political tool whenever it's able to.

In the end America does exactly what America wants to do, regardless of what the Security Council might have to say about it. America, like Saddam's Iraq, is an outlaw nation. But it's a really, really BIG outlaw nation. Saddam's Iraq was a small one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:32 AM

From Little Hawk

"there is no rule anyone can make up that won't provide an occasional exception somewhere. That's why we have to use our own minds to decide, in the final analysis, regardless of what we think the "rules" are. "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:03 AM

"Endless repetition of the same ol' crap is not any kind of proof"

THIS I can agree with- so when will you show me where Saddam COMPLIED with 1441????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 08:42 AM

"First link: Date Nov. 8, 2002
Second link: Date Nov. 8, 2002 (and a repeat of the first one)"

If you show no comprehension of what 1441 says, it is reasonable to present it to you before discussing the failure of Saddam to comply with it.



"Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).



By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.



Under the new inspection regime established by the resolution, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites and buildings in Iraq, including presidential sites. They would also have the right to remove or destroy any weapons, or related items, they found.



The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 08:40 AM

''the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq."

Never said they were, JUST THAT THE UN DECLARED SADDAM WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE with 1441, his LAST AND FINAL chance.

Read what has been said, not wwhat you want to see.


"IF Iraq chose to cooperate fully, as required. It was a challenge to the Council and an affront to the international community that Iraq was withholding full cooperation. "

"Similarly, the representative of Canada said that more time for inspections could be useful, but only IF Iraq decided to cooperate fully and transparently, starting now. While that cooperation was beginning, it was being offered grudgingly and only after intense pressure and the deliberate build-up of MILITARY FORCES in the region. "


As for "but I know you don't give a damn about them or their families, Brucie...."

The blood is on the hands of those, like yyou, who DID NOT DEMAND THAT SADDAM COMPLY, but instead did all they could to lead him to believe that he could get away with continued violation, as he had for 14 years. LOOK at who was making money off the violations of sanctions, and who voted against holding Saddam to the terms of 1441.


""But he took a more positive line than in his report two weeks ago, "
WELL AFTER THE DEADLINE FOR COOPERATION IN 1441- see note above about Saddam only cooperating AFTER the military buildup.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:56 PM

BeardedBruce:

[BeardedBruce claimed: "I state that the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and give a clicky to it so that all can read it and see."]


First link: Date Nov. 8, 2002


Second link: Date Nov. 8, 2002 (and a repeat of the first one)


Third link: Date Feb. 19, 2003.
The debate, which heard from more than 60 speakers, in two days, was called for by the Non-Aligned Movement and held in the wake of last Friday's briefing by the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Hans Blix, and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. They reported that Iraq's cooperation on procedural matters had recently improved and they had not found any weapons of mass destruction. They pointed out, however, that many banned weapons remained unaccounted for, requiring Iraq's 'immediate, unconditional and active' cooperation.
...
Although the world seemed perched on the thin edge of war, said the Indonesian representative, the situation was not hopeless and the objectives of resolution 1441 (2002) could still be met. Resolution 1441 was a finely structured text, which defined the disarmament scenario before Iraq and clearly outlined the consequences for default or violations. In formulating the next step, it was only right that the inspectors and the results of the inspections be taken into account. To authorize war without doing so would amount to 'preconceived warfare' and seriously undermine the Council.

The representative of Norway agreed that time had not run out and the use of force was not unavoidable, but more inspectors or better equipment could not, by themselves, resolve the outstanding issues. As Dr. Blix had said last Friday, the period of disarmament through inspections could be 'short' if Iraq chose to cooperate fully, as required. It was a challenge to the Council and an affront to the international community that Iraq was withholding full cooperation.

Similarly, the representative of Canada said that more time for inspections could be useful, but only if Iraq decided to cooperate fully and transparently, starting now. While that cooperation was beginning, it was being offered grudgingly and only after intense pressure and the deliberate build-up of military forces in the region. To make clear to Iraq what was expected, the Council must lay out a list of key remaining disarmament tasks and establish an early deadline for compliance. That would allow the international community to judge whether Iraq was cooperating on substance, and not just on process.
I'd note that three of the listed speakers mentioned "material breach", but only one of them (Macedonia) was claiming a clear "material breach" existed. And not a single instance of "substantial non-compliance".

Nothing a little searching couldn't resolve, or at least help significantly, as Blix told them. And with "improv[ing] ... cooperation", hard to keep maintaining there's some "material breach" justifying 2300 U.S. soldiers (and many more Iraqis) dead ... but I know you don't give a damn about them or their families, Brucie....

Again, note the date. And note that points brought up in debate by member countries are hardly the "sense of the U.N.", much less U.N. resolutions.

Then you quote:

"December 19: the Security Council hears an initial, closed-doors assessment of the Iraqi dossier from Drs. Blix and ElBaradei. Both officials tell reporters that the declaration appears deficient in important respects...."

Ummm, hate to say it, Brucie, but the declarations of Iraq turned out to be far less "deficient" than the declarations of the U.S. before the U.N. Might have looked like "breach" to some folks, but that doesn't make it an actual breach, does it? Are you willing to at least grant that point?


Fourth link: Through Feb. 1, 2003 (actually, has stuff to about Feb. 5, 2003, when Powell gave his ginned up "dog'n'pony" show to the U.N.).


Fifth link: Date Mar. 12, 2003. Debate on what to do. Well, let me tell you, Brucie, the U.S. pushed for armed invasion, but the U.N. was a hell of a lot smarter than Dubya, and resisted. In the end, while Dubya had promised to force a vote on a new resolution that would presumably have found Iraq in non-compliance and authorised Dubya's blood-letting, Dubya had to renege on his promise when it was obvious that he wouldn't even get more than 5 of the Security Council members to go along with him (despite arm-twisting and bribes). So don't pretend that the U.N. authorised anything like what Dubya did, no matter what was said by the various parties in debate. Like this:

"The African position, he continued, did not endorse war at the present stage. The international community, through the inspectors, must subject the sincerity of Iraq's promise of full cooperation and compliance with relevant resolutions to some rigorous test. Any war against Iraq would have to be sanctioned by a resolution from the Council."

More from the debate:

"Iraq's continued full cooperation with inspectors must be the basis for the peaceful settlement of the crisis and the subsequent lifting of sanctions."

and:

CHUCHAI KASEMSARN (Thailand) welcomed Iraq's further cooperation with the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), enabling them to make progress in their inspections.

Even less in that debate about "material breach". And once again, not a single instance of "substantial non-compliance". But once again, two points, Brucie: It's the U.N. Security Council (and not individual member states) that gets to decide if there's a "material breach" of UNSCR 1441. And even if they decide that (which they didn't do), it is they who get to decide what to do about it. Not Dubya. Dubya can't claim any U.N. backing for his sanguinary little war, because they refused to back it. Period. Not to mention that Dubya's little war is arguably contrary to the U.N. Charter.


Seventh link: Date Nov. 8, 2002. And a repeat of previous links.


Eighth link: Date Feb. 11, 2003

"But he took a more positive line than in his report two weeks ago, saying Baghdad had made progress in a number of areas."

And then there's this:

"Mr Blix cast doubt on American intelligence material presented to the Security Council last week by US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

He said he had no evidence that Iraq had had advance warning of inspections - as has been claimed by the United States - and questioned satellite images said to show suspicious movement at an Iraqi weapons site.


Big, fat, red flag there.


Ninth link: Freeperville. 'Nuff said.


Endless repetition of the same ol' crap is not any kind of proof, Brucie. Where'd the U.N. find that Saddam was in "substantial non-compliance" or "material breach"? Still waiting ...... and waiting ....... and waiting ...............

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 09:57 PM

BeardedBruce:

[Bruce]: I state that the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and give a clicky to it so that all can read it and see.

[Arne]: Ummm, nope. Amongst other things, it was the Security Council's job to decide if there was "substantial non-compliance".

Ummm, you can take the maladministration's word for it, Brucie. Here:
But Bush already realized the sources were not panning out. According to a Times review of the entire Jan. 31 memo, written by Blair's foreign policy adviser, David Manning, it showed that ''the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq."

With no weapons, Bush talked about provoking Saddam. ''The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colors," the Times quotes the memo as saying. ''If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
The maladministration thought they needed to provoke a breach. Not too encouraging for the home team, Brucie, when even Dubya's on the other side, eh?

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 08:28 AM

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm

http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unscresolutions/PVRs-debates/un-scdebate-021903.htm

"December 19: the Security Council hears an initial, closed-doors assessment of the Iraqi dossier from Drs. Blix and ElBaradei. Both officials tell reporters that the declaration appears deficient in important respects. Blix states: "There were a lot of open questions at the end of 1998...and these have not been answered by evidence in the new declaration. ... An opportunity was missed in the declaration to give a lot of evidence..." For example: "Iraq declared earlier that they had produced about 8,500 litres of anthrax, and there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it was limited to 8,500, so we must ask ourselves, was there more?""

http://www.acronym.org.uk/textonly/dd/dd69/69nr01.htm

http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unscresolutions/PVRs-debates/un-scmeeting-031203.htm

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/AllDocsByUNID/97e9b9191b64dab449256ce800055700


"11. [The Security Council] directs the executive chairman of Unmovic and the director-general of the IAEA to report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2412837.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2759653.stm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/836223/posts


YOU state that Saddam was doing what the UN wanted, and give NO reference other than your own imagination.


Care to read about what you have made so many declarations without support?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 09:52 PM

BeardedBruce:

I state that the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and give a clicky to it so that all can read it and see.

Ummm, nope. Amongst other things, it was the Security Council's job to decide if there was "substantial non-compliance".

YOU state that Saddam was doing what the UN wanted, and give NO reference other than your own imagination.

We're seeing more and more every day about both how Saddam was trying to find some way to convince the U.S. that he was complying (he even started destroying the disputed but arguably legal SRMs). Now we have the N.Y. Times report that Dubya and Blair were bound and determined to go to war despite the fact there were no WoMD being found and thinking maybe they wouldn't be found (even to the point of ginning up a 'Gulf of Tonkin provocation' by getting a U-2, repainted in U.N. colours, fired on [and maybe a pilot killed, but what the hey?]). And Colin Powell saying that a war wasn't justified without a second U.N. resolution and that this wasn't justified without some WoMD or something (see here).

And you still continue to suck Dubya's hind teat and carry his water for him. Bet that makes you feel ... proud. I'd shower, if I were you.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:56 AM

"kendall - PM
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:53 AM

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. None are carved in stone"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:48 AM

" Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 07:14 AM

...
Any large group of people has it's wackos.
If I found a wacko atheist I would not cite him as evidence that atheists are wrong."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:05 AM

"jacqui.c - PM
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 07:59 AM

I have a theory that the divides in humanity come down to the basic insecurity of a lot of people. This makes them need to belong to a group and, when they come across others who are not part of that group, they have to push their ideology forward, sometimes extremely aggressively, in order to bouy up their own ego."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 06:49 AM

sorry about that- ALL of the last post save the last line were from LH, and should have been in quotes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 06:34 AM

Little Hawk - PM
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:21 PM

"The thing about the left is that it has, in recent years, developed an orthodoxy that is every bit as repressive as the orthodoxy in the right."

Absolutely. In fact, that has always been the case, not just recently. Left and Right are equally given to hypocrisy, self-serving hyperbole, and unthinking prejudice. This makes it easy for them both to find a lot to accuse the other of, and a lot to bitch about generally.



This is a statement I can agree with, whole-heartedly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:02 AM

Arne,


"I just wish you'd actually address the points people make in response ... and perhaps, sometimes, occasionally, make some sense."


I state that the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and give a clicky to it so that all can read it and see.

YOU state that Saddam was doing what the UN wanted, and give NO reference other than your own imagination.


I was being generous and attributing it to lack of comprehension rather than a deliberate use of restating a false statement until people start to believe it.



Now, can we take this discussion to another thread?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:57 AM

kendall - PM
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 09:31 AM

Believe it or not, "The truly wise man is never sure of anything."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 02:14 PM

Bearded Bruce:

Oh, I don't mind your exercise of your freedom of expression. I just wish you'd actually address the points people make in response ... and perhaps, sometimes, occasionally, make some sense.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 01:35 PM

The Shambles - PM
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 01:12 PM

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
Noam Chomsky


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 09:08 PM

BeardedBruce:

This thread has drifted from my original intent ( see the starting post. I admit I am guilty of responding to the blatent lies presented as facts without any justification.

So if I were you, I wouldn't get too snitty when people respond to your recent posts.

Too bad Arne has a problem with comprehension of English.

At the risk of further thread creep, may I ask where I'm supposedly having difficulty?

;-)

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 06:21 AM

Auto,

This thread has drifted from my original intent ( see the starting post. I admit I am guilty of responding to the blatent lies presented as facts without any justification. There are a number of threads here that ARE appropriate for the discussion about Iraq, where I have addressed the topic at some length. Too bad Arne has a problem with comprehension of English.

And no, I have never hinted that I was leaving this forum.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: autolycus
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 05:04 PM

BB, forgive me, I didn't grasp your last comment to me, so I'm just requesting clarification.

(Incidentally, I read elsewhere you're leaving mudcat. I hope it's not true tho' naturally I'd respect your choice. You have so much of interest to say.)

It's just that you said this is not the thread for my question. Please redirect me to the right place, tho' if you could say why this is the wrong one, I'll be in your debt.

Best wishes

Auto(Ivor)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:28 AM

However, BB has recently said "Just because you keep repeating lies.." This is a non-partisan political comment? At least the person who started the thread should try to keep on-topic.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:54 AM

BeardedBruce is correct this is not the thread to be discussing the subjects raised by Arne. He is also right in that he has previously answered Arne's points in other relevant threads.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 08:58 PM

BeardedBruce:

Bush told what he thought was the truth at the time he said it- As MOST of the world believed.

Umm, the quote in question was spoken in July of 2003 (much to the consternation of such as Kofi Annan, standing by his side). He repeated this same assertion (with slightly different words, IIRC) on one other occasion after that.

So, did Dubya really think in July, 2003 that Saddam hadn't let the inspectors in??? Perhaps it's possible, but in that case, I'd think about invoking the 25th Amendment.....

No, Blix didn't lie to the U.N. But he did say that he hadn't found a darn ting (and he said that he'd been checking the sites that U.S. "intelligence" had pinpointed ... in Iraq, nor Upper Phlogistan).

I did- and Saddam DID NOT until well after the deadline YOU reprinted from UNR1441....

Huh? What deadline? Nonetheless, Dubya didn't say "he wouldn't let them in until after this deadline I pulled out of my arse...."

We're back to this thing where you seem to think that arbitrary "deadlines" and arbitrary marks of co-operation are far more important that whether the job was getting done ... so much so that it didn't even matter whether there were WoMD there, what really mattered is that Saddam supposedly spit in Dubya's eye (at least at first), and thus we needed to invade a sovereign (albeit dictatorial) country, bollix it up royally, and get 2200 U.S. servicemen killed in the process. I think not, but that's an entirely different proposition from the question of whether Dubya was telling an outright lie in that quote I put forth.....

Just because YOU keep repeating lies does not make them true,...

Ummm, what lies, Bruce? Just because you keep avoiding the point doesn't make it go away, Bruce.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 06:34 AM

Auto,

I did say "This is not the thread for the discussion: There are others that are appropriate." ( I did correct a typo...)

Arne,

Ok, since you have a problem in comprehension.

Bush told what he thought was the truth at the time he said it- As MOST of the world believed.

"All you have to do is do some research, and find out if "[Saddam] wouldn't let them [the inspectors] in." "

I did- and Saddam DID NOT until well after the deadline YOU reprinted from UNR1441 Try reading what you post.

Did you ever read the Blix Report? It seems obvious you did not, since you keep saying that he lied to the UN in it.

Just because YOU keep repeating lies does not make them true, regardless of your viewpoint- TRY to have some basis for your statements- like quotes, or UN reports, or reality.


Cheers back at you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: autolycus
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 05:20 AM

Bearded Bruce

   You ask Arne where is the answer from him to a direct question of yours.

I have the same request.

It is a knotty problem - how is it possible to have a "non-partisan" discussion" when we refer to "the other side", as in "unless you know how the other side is thinking"?

A non-partisan discussion can only be entered, presumably, by those not on either side. Those on either side are, by definition, partisan.

That leads to a fundamental question, or rather the plural, to fundamental questions.. If someone on one side of an argument listens to the other side,

1. Does the outcome that having heard the other side they still don't agree prove that they have not heard?
2. Or having heard and still not agreeing does NOT prove that they have not heard the views of the other side?
3. In either case, how can it be part of a non-partisan discussion?

   (Cor, like being back at uni. doing me philosophy.

   Auto.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 09:39 PM

BeardedBruce:

Arne,

Most of your points I had addressed in the past- ...


Ummm, the question, Bruce, the question.

Did Dubya lie? Yes or no..... Shouldn't be hard to figure out, eh? All you have to do is do some research, and find out if "[Saddam] wouldn't let them [the inspectors] in." You have a job to do there, Bruce, because you're going to have to figure out how Hans Blix was reporting from Upper Phlogistan when everyone thought he was reporting from Baghdad and reporting that the U.S. intelligence was (in the words of one of his inspection team) "garbage, garbage, and more garbage" ... before Dubya's "one last chance" and his alleged last minute reluctant decision to invade. You're going to have to explain how the inspectors had took a wrong turn and found a load of chicken-s*** in the vast reaches of Syria while checking out a place that Dubya's maladministration had said that Saddam was hiding SCUDs.... I suppose it is true that Dubya might have been justified in invading if indeed these serial miscues and foulups of the insepectors had failed to uncover the massive quantities of WoMD that were really in Iraq because they had so stoopidly and mistakenly been inspecting the wrong country. If so, my estimation of Dubya will rise quite a bit. So hop to it, my man....

Say, Bruce:

Here's an interesting link for ya. You know, sometimes knowing there's a problem is the first step to finding a cure.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 10:19 AM

Arne,

Most of your points I had addressed in the past- YOUR inability to comprehend the written word is not my problem.

This is not the thgread for the discussion: There are others that are appropriate.





"Now don't go accusing me of ignoring your "points". I didn't before, and I'm not doing it now. I just disagree with what you say. But now I want an answer:"

And when I ask a direct question , when have you responded?


I do agree that we disagree, though...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 10:05 AM

BeardedBruce:

Still non-responsive, IC. Imagine my surprise. You even had a month to come up with something actually on-point....

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 09:47 AM

CapriUni - PM
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 02:49 PM

From Garrison Kiellor, many, many many years ago (if I recall correctly):

Everyone has a sense of humor. It's just that not everyone has your sense of humor.

(or something to that effect)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:29 AM

Myself when young did eagerly frequent

Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument

About it and about: but evermore

Came out by the same Door as in I went.

(from Edward FitzGerald's Translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, a 10th century skeptic).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 04:45 PM

BeardedBruce:

Not a blind eye- it is just that they are better than the alternative offered by the Democrats, IMO.

Ahhhh, "moral relativism" at its finest. The tu quoque defence is in full flourish amongst the Republican sycophants, IC. Guess that's what you're reduced to when your leareds are caught with their pants down. But what, pray tell, is "worse" with the Democrats, eh? For what prize, did you sell your soul for a sou, dear Bruce? Let us know; we're interested? Abortion? What motivates you to turn a blind eye to the needless deaths of thousands of our young ones?

As I stated, IF there are people found to have committed illegal acts, they should be prosecuted. Period. Regardless of party.

Do you think that it was legal to disclose Plame's connection with the CIA (something that it is now obvious that both Rove and Libby did)? Even fi you're going to get 'technical' on this, do you think that this outing for political purpose was the hallmark of good government? Regardless, you miss the point: Dubya said that anyone involved in this would be out of a job (and he also said, probably dishonestly, that Libby and Rove weren't involved). He lied. Rove is still special assistant to Dubya. And Libby's only out because he got indicted. Hardly the hallmark of an responsible and honest administration.

This was discussed- PLANS are always being made for POSSIBLE actions, just in case. I have seen NO EVIDENCE that any decision, other than to have Saddam comply with his obligations, was made PRIOR to the DEADLINE date specified in UNR 1441.

You still believe that horsepucky, when so many people have said that the maladministration was gung-ho from the get-go??? Just as a ferinstance, I'd point to the fact that Dubya went ahead and invaded after he'd gotten Saddam to let the inspectors in (and despite the fact that the U.N. Security council was heavily in favour of letting the inspectors do their job). There's Duya's "F*** Saddam, we're taking him out" comment, and his appalliong "Feels good!" (while pumping his fist in the air) on starting the hostilities. That doesn't register with you, Bruce???

And what's with this horsepuckey about "the DEADLINE date specified in UNR 1441"? Please explain.

"3). Dubya's repeated assertions that warrants were needed for wiretaps and that he wasn't doing any warrantless snoops."

Repeated? I have not seen them- can you provide a link?
I will wait for facts before deciding the point.


Here's one (found in 2 minutes with Google). I've heard audio clips of a couple on the radio but can't give you links right now. Is one enough, or will you demand "repeated"? (One quote is enough to establish the proposition that he in fact did make such an assertion).

Here's the official maladministration site's words:
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.


"4). The maladministration's claims that Dubya didn't know Abramoff (despite Abramaoff's 200 or so visits to the White House, his logged meetings with Dubya, and his being a member of the Dubya transition team. Hey, for that matter, remember Dubya's "Kenny who?" for his old pal (and biggest contributor) "Kenny Boy" Lay."

Again, send me links.

*sheesh* Pick up a newspaper, will ya? Or for that matter, Google is your friend....

[Arne]: Yep. Not only is that not the truth, but it's not even close. I've tried to look at how it could be charitably interpretetd as a twisting of the truth, a somewhat dishonest and misleading slant on the truth, or a reasonable mistake. No matter how I look at it, t's none of those things, Bruce, and it's time you displayed some honesty and fessed up to it. Or you can explain why Saddam letting the inspectors in (an obvious and established fact) is "Saddam not letting them in".

So, after the deadline, he let the inspectors have the access they wanted- AFTER THE DEADLINE HAD PASSED.

WTF is this "AFTER THE DEADLINE HAD PASSED"???? But I'd note this is nonresponsive to my point. Still don't know what hallucinatory "deadline" you're trying to foist off here, but Dubya didn't say "... before the deadline had passed", did he??? Yes or no, Bruce.

So, after the deadline, he let the inspectors have the access they wanted- AFTER THE DEADLINE HAD PASSED. From his past history, he always gave in just enough to get away with NOT complying with the UN resolutions- Can you provide ANY evidence that he was providing ANY of the information specifically pointed out in the UN report required by 1441, that stated he was in substatantial non-compliance? The ONLY thing I had heard was that, IF he did provide that information, the inspectors would have been able to do their job- NOT THAT HE WAS COOPERATING.

Saddam let the inspectors in. He gave them the report they wanted. The inspectors were doing their job, and protested against the Dubya sword wagging and asked ... almost begged ... to be left in there to fininsh the job. They were 100% right, BTW.

You seem to have some completely incomprehensible notion that Dubya just had to invade (something that not even the UNSCR in the ititial 1441 resolution had even specified) if there was any disputed or technical "non-compliance" at some date that it seem just you made up, and further, that it is good policy to invade and to get many thousands killed despite whatever happened afterhad to invade at the same time that he was still claiming that no such decision had been made, which would make him a liar (and prove my other point).

Here's UNSCR 1441:

          3.       Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, 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 such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

          4.       Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq�s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

          5.       Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, 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 in the mode or location of UNMOVIC�s or the IAEA�s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;


Iraq did #3. The U.S. thought it inaccurate and/or incomplete, but it turns out to have been far more accurate than the U.S. claims. The Iraqis did #5. #4 says that the U.N. will be responsible for assessing and taking further action, not Dubya and his bunch of gunslingers.

Do you understand "FINAL" at all?

Do you unnderstand "stoopidity", "intransigence", and "imperviousness to new facts and developments" at all? Do you still think that 2000 soldiers' (and many more civilians') lives are a perfectly reasonable prive to pay for some bureaucratic and/or technical failure to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s (disputed failure at that)? I asked you this a long time ago, and I don't think I ever got a response. How many soldiers' lives are worth a snub to Dubya's ego and pride, Bruce? Or hoy many are worth his political esteem and electoral advantage (if you happen to be a bit cynical about Dubya's strategery)? Because an invasion when Iraq was co-operating in every meaningful way and when it was becoming more and more apparent every day that Iraq had not WoMD becomes sheer stoopidity if not outright madness....

State on the ground in MARCH- Saddam had failed to comply with his last and final chance,...

Oh, garbage.

His RESISTANCE to the US invasion was sufficient reason, from the ceasefire terms of the Kuwait war, to invade.

Goebbels stands in awe.

You state this is hogwash, but provide no justification of your opinion. You may think it whatever you like- but if you want others to agree with you, you might want to at least outline the facts you believe support your view.

Fact: Eight of thirteen members of the U.N. Security Council refused to back the U.S. invasion.

Many governments (and far more people) were dead-set against any invasion.

Clinton never trotted out some manufactured baloney including fake anthrax vials for the U.N. Security Council. Many outside of government and even a numebr of governments expressed scepticism at the "Dogdy dossier", and the Pile'O'Crap that Powell gave at the U.N.

Broder's got his own row to hoe; he was one of the ones that got conned by the maladministration.

Prime example of Broder's hogwash: "The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." The intelligence was false. This is pretty much undisputed fact. And unless you're willing to admit that Dubya's a malevolent liar and schemer, pulling the wool over the eyes of the 'Merkun public whe he really wanted to go to war for other reasons (yaknow, like the reasons spelled out the the Project for a New American Century report that was the darling child of allthe neocons infesting his maladministration), then Dubya took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence. Simple as that, Bruce. Broder claims there's no "clear evidence" that Dubya wilfully distorted the intelligence", but that's nonsense (or wilfull blindness on Broder's part). There's been more than one person reporting that the evidence was distorted, "worst-cased", stovepiped, ignored, and otherwise so horribly mangled (and in many cases reportedly under direction or under pressure from Cheney's office) that what came out was that black was conclusively determined to be white. You can't argue with what we know now, Bruce. There's no possible way to get things so totally wrong with an objective eye.

Now don't go accusing me of ignoring your "points". I didn't before, and I'm not doing it now. I just disagree with what you say. But now I want an answer:

Did Dubya lie when he said "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the inspectors] in"? Simple yes or no, Bruce. Let's se how honest you are.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 01:31 PM

Arne,

"OK. So, pray tell: What motivates you to turn such a blind eye to the incompetence, mendaciousness, and outright criminality of the maladministration and the Republican party then? If you think I'm misstating the case, I'd bring to your attention:"

Not a blind eye- it is just that they are better than the alternative offered by the Democrats, IMO.



"1). Dubya's comments that no one in the maladministration (Libby and Rove included) were involved in the Plame outing (and his comments that anyone who did such would be fired)."

As I stated, IF there are people found to have committed illegal acts, they should be prosecuted. Period. Regardless of party.


"2). Dubya's repeated contention that war in Iraq was the "last" option, and that he hadn't decide to go in there, when there's repeated accounts from multiple sources that Iraq had been in the works almost from the inception of Dubya's maladministration."

This was discussed- PLANS are always being made for POSSIBLE actions, just in case. I have seen NO EVIDENCE that any decision, other than to have Saddam comply with his obligations, was made PRIOR to the DEADLINE date specified in UNR 1441.

"3). Dubya's repeated assertions that warrants were needed for wiretaps and that he wasn't doing any warrantless snoops."

Repeated? I have not seen them- can you provide a link?
I will wait for facts before deciding the point.



"4). The maladministration's claims that Dubya didn't know Abramoff (despite Abramaoff's 200 or so visits to the White House, his logged meetings with Dubya, and his being a member of the Dubya transition team. Hey, for that matter, remember Dubya's "Kenny who?" for his old pal (and biggest contributor) "Kenny Boy" Lay."

Again, send me links.


"[Arne]:"That Dubya out-and-out lied when he said: "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the weapons inspectors] in" and that is why Dubya decided to invade."

Yep. Not only is that not the truth, but it's not even close. I've tried to look at how it could be charitably interpretetd as a twisting of the truth, a somewhat dishonest and misleading slant on the truth, or a reasonable mistake. No matter how I look at it, t's none of those things, Bruce, and it's time you displayed some honesty and fessed up to it. Or you can explain why Saddam letting the inspectors in (an obvious and established fact) is "Saddam not letting them in"."


So, after the deadline, he let the inspectors have the access they wanted- AFTER THE DEADLINE HAD PASSED. From his past history, he always gave in just enough to get away with NOT complying with the UN resolutions- Can you provide ANY evidence that he was providing ANY of the information specifically pointed out in the UN report required by 1441, that stated he was in substatantial non-compliance? The ONLY thing I had heard was that, IF he did provide that information, the inspectors would have been able to do their job- NOT THAT HE WAS COOPERATING.



"We have gone around about the weapons inspectors- And the UN report says that Saddam was in "substantial non-compliance" at the time of the deadline.

Oh, nonsense. And as I said, disagreeing with your misinterpretation and selective cut'n'paste of the facts hardly constitutes personal attack on you. What "deadline"? What "report"?

Have you bothered to read the UN REPORT required by 1441? It appears you have major problems in comprehension of the English language.

Do you understand "FINAL" at all?

"hat does that have to do with the state on the ground in March of 2003? And more importantly, isn't it up to the United Nations to decide what action to take in the face of any "substantial non-compliance"?"

State on the ground in MARCH- Saddam had failed to comply with his last and final chance, and the UN had stated that. He had the choice to open his borders, and did not- His RESISTANCE to the US invasion was sufficient reason, from the ceasefire terms of the Kuwait war, to invade.


"David S. Broder " The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein's military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did -- and so did other governments in the Western alliance."


You state this is hogwash, but provide no justification of your opinion. You may think it whatever you like- but if you want others to agree with you, you might want to at least outline the facts you believe support your view. This is your usual method of argument- I still await all the FACTS that would show me why you have your opinions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 05:57 PM

BeardedBruce:

Arne,

[Arne]:"That Dubya out-and-out lied when he said: "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the weapons inspectors] in" and that is why Dubya decided to invade."

Yep. Not only is that not the truth, but it's not even close. I've tried to look at how it could be charitably interpretetd as a twisting of the truth, a somewhat dishonest and misleading slant on the truth, or a reasonable mistake. No matter how I look at it, t's none of those things, Bruce, and it's time you displayed some honesty and fessed up to it. Or you can explain why Saddam letting the inspectors in (an obvious and established fact) is "Saddam not letting them in".

David S. Broder " The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein's military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did -- and so did other governments in the Western alliance."

Hogwash, and more importantly, irrelevant to my quote.

We have gone around about the weapons inspectors- And the UN report says that Saddam was in "substantial non-compliance" at the time of the deadline.

Oh, nonsense. And as I said, disagreeing with your misinterpretation and selective cut'n'paste of the facts hardly constitutes personal attack on you. What "deadline"? What "report"? What does that have to do with the state on the ground in March of 2003? And more importantly, isn't it up to the United Nations to decide what action to take in the face of any "substantial non-compliance"?

IF Saddam decided to let inspectors in AFTER Bush had mobilized troops on his borders, that hardly supports YOUR contention of why Bush invaded.

Huh???? You sound very confused here (or confusing). Once again, I'll see if I can divine your "point" from this sentence, but don't fault me if I'm guessing wrong in the face of your incomprehensibility. Are you saying that the invasion was one and the same as massing troops on the border? Why do you suggest that I am thinking that the timing of Saddam's letting the inspectors in is supportive of my (alleged; to be honest I don't think I've actually stated a theory as to why Dubya invaded) theory as to why Dubya invaded? I'll agree with you that this timing does no such thing. What does seem to put to the lie one "theory" as to why Dubya invaded is the fact that Saddam did let the inspectors in albeit after Dubya had started mobilizing troops. Great. The fust0shaking worked. Saddam gave in. Now does that mean that Dubya's got to get 2200+ U.S. soldiers killed when the "mission is already accomplished". That last bit is the silly ... and the horrific ... part of Dubya's little speech. The plain facts (that Saddam did let the inspectors in) make that war unnecessary!!! So, the facts as we know them make those deaths in vain ... if we're to believe that Dubya was honest when he made that statement. No wonder you cling to it so grimly ... the alternative would make Lady Macbeth's insomnia seem like a walk in the park compared to you and your cheerleading.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 05:28 PM

BeardedBruce:

"You will never win a battle unless you can understand how the other side is thinking. It doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but you do need to understand what motivates them."

OK. So, pray tell: What motivates you to turn such a blind eye to the incompetence, mendaciousness, and outright criminality of the maladministration and the Republican party then? If you think I'm misstating the case, I'd bring to your attention:

1). Dubya's comments that no one in the maladministration (Libby and Rove included) were involved in the Plame outing (and his comments that anyone who did such would be fired).

2). Dubya's repeated contention that war in Iraq was the "last" option, and that he hadn't decide to go in there, when there's repeated accounts from multiple sources that Iraq had been in the works almost from the inception of Dubya's maladministration.

3). Dubya's repeated assertions that warrants were needed for wiretaps and that he wasn't doing any warrantless snoops.

4). The maladministration's claims that Dubya didn't know Abramoff (despite Abramaoff's 200 or so visits to the White House, his logged meetings with Dubya, and his being a member of the Dubya transition team. Hey, for that matter, remember Dubya's "Kenny who?" for his old pal (and biggest contributor) "Kenny Boy" Lay.

5). Then there's DeLay, Ney, Ralph Reed, Michael Brown, John Bolton, etc.

The list goes on and on, Bruce. So, dear Brucie, what is the "motivation" for your continuing to defend such a fetid heap of miasma? What's in it for you??? Do tell us....

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 29 March 9:23 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright 1998 by the Mudcat Caf Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.