Why there was no W.M.D's in Iraq
Philip Heggie
actually a double V not a double U, the
double U in W.M.D is a lie and hence there are
no weapons of mass destruction it's
a pure fabrication by Bush. Bush looked at Iraq
saw I.R.A in the name Iraq and concluded
their are terrorists in Iraq ( see IRAq)
The Irish Republican Army perhaps so Bush
attacked Iraq in the name of the war
against terrorism. When Bush and Howard
get together it's Dumb and Dumber.
Our leaders are f*#kwits.
Greig
Philip,
Here is the UN's working document on unresolved WMD issues in Iraq
immediately prior to the 2003 Gulf war conflict.
[long version]
www.un.org/
Depts/unmovic/documents/UNMOVIC%20UDI%20Working%20Document%206%20March%2003.pdf
[summary]
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/State/state-factsheet-031003.htm
And here is the status after the ISG after the conflict:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and
significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United
Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery
of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through
the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning
information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence
of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have
been declared to the UN. "
As you can see, WMD's were not a "pure fabrication by Bush".
>Our leaders are f*#kwits.
Well, they may be. But claiming that a man who has been elected
president of the US is unaware of the difference between Iraq and the
IRA, - what does that make you in their eyes?
infidel
*Richard Butler*, Governor of Tasmania, Our HM's most disloyal Rep., the
doyen of the left reported
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2000/000928rb.pdf
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:tfAFJwRkGI0J:armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2000/000928rb.pdf+Richard+butler+wmd+iraq&hl=en
FA
I.
"Philip Heggie" <ph...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:40b5...@news.alphalink.com.au...
>
Greig
wrote:
>http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2000/000928rb.pdf
Butler has now been proven to have been completely correct about
Iraq's illegal missile development. The fact that this alone
represented a complete and deliberate breach of UN requirements
appears to have been overlooked by the Saddam apologists.
Gregory Shearman
On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:26:22 +0000, Greig wrote:
> "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and
> significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United
> Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of
> these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the
> admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they
> deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and
> activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the
> UN. "
>
>
> As you can see, WMD's were not a "pure fabrication by Bush".
Nope... nothing about WMDs in there. Bush is still guilty of fabrication.
"WMD-related program activities" indeed...
... you still trying to stretch this pathetic fabrication into a danger to
the USA?
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
Greig
<ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:26:22 +0000, Greig wrote:
>
>
>> "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and
>> significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United
>> Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of
>> these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the
>> admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they
>> deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and
>> activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the
>> UN. "
>>
>>
>> As you can see, WMD's were not a "pure fabrication by Bush".
>
>Nope... nothing about WMDs in there.
Clearly, you are blind.
Harry Snape
infidel
One of the experts, the former head of UNSCOM, the left wing Governor
of Tasmania.
Had this to say!
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2000/000928rb.pdf
or
http://tinyurl.com/2aukd
FA
I.
Gregory Shearman
Clearly, you don't know the difference between drawings.... and WMD.
Gregory Shearman
Har har har...
Can't tell the difference between paper ... and Weapons of Mass
Destruction ready to be unleashed on the USA or sold to imaginary Al Kader
connections....
Greig
<ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:16:26 +1000, Greig wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 May 2004 11:40:54 +1000, "Gregory Shearman"
>> <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:26:22 +0000, Greig wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and
>>>> significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United
>>>> Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery
>>>> of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through
>>>> the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information
>>>> they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment
>>>> and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared
>>>> to the UN. "
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As you can see, WMD's were not a "pure fabrication by Bush".
>>>
>>>Nope... nothing about WMDs in there.
>>
>> Clearly, you are blind.
>
>Clearly, you don't know the difference between drawings.... and WMD.
The ISG found "physical evidence of equipment". Not "drawings".
Clearly you are incapable of comprehension. The UN is not debating
this issue any more, they have recognised the legal occupation in Iraq
since May 2003. When are you going to learn - this matter is
resolved. Saddam was not disarming as required by the UN, therefore
the CoW was justified in removing him. End of story.
SKD
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:51:23 +1000, "Gregory Shearman"
> <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:16:26 +1000, Greig wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 31 May 2004 11:40:54 +1000, "Gregory Shearman"
> >> <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:26:22 +0000, Greig wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and
> >>>> significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United
> >>>> Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery
> >>>> of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through
> >>>> the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information
> >>>> they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment
> >>>> and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared
> >>>> to the UN. "
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> As you can see, WMD's were not a "pure fabrication by Bush".
> >>>
> >>>Nope... nothing about WMDs in there.
> >>
> >> Clearly, you are blind.
> >
> >Clearly, you don't know the difference between drawings.... and WMD.
>
> The ISG found "physical evidence of equipment". Not "drawings".
You lie.
> Clearly you are incapable of comprehension. The UN is not debating
> this issue any more, they have recognised the legal occupation in Iraq
> since May 2003. When are you going to learn - this matter is
> resolved. Saddam was not disarming as required by the UN, therefore
You lie again.
> the CoW was justified in removing him. End of story.
Your justification is premised on lies. You wish. With Persians
gradually taking control of the Gulf, there is no wayout of answering
to some very hard questions. Tenet's bailed out, but it may not be the
end of story for him either.
Greig
>gebe...@commander.com (Greig) wrote in message news:<40c0fc93....@news.supernews.com>...
>> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:51:23 +1000, "Gregory Shearman"
>> <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:16:26 +1000, Greig wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 31 May 2004 11:40:54 +1000, "Gregory Shearman"
>> >> <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:26:22 +0000, Greig wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and
>> >>>> significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United
>> >>>> Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery
>> >>>> of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through
>> >>>> the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information
>> >>>> they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment
>> >>>> and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared
>> >>>> to the UN. "
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As you can see, WMD's were not a "pure fabrication by Bush".
>> >>>
>> >>>Nope... nothing about WMDs in there.
>> >>
>> >> Clearly, you are blind.
>> >
>> >Clearly, you don't know the difference between drawings.... and WMD.
>>
>> The ISG found "physical evidence of equipment". Not "drawings".
>
>You lie.
Can't you read? David Kay stated that the ISG found "physical
evidence of equipment". The ISG is the only organisation on the
ground in Iraq, and the only organisation capable of making comment on
the current status of Iraqi disarmament. Now if what you are saying
is: "the ISG is lying", well OK. Show your proof that they are
lying. Otherwise you are just one more pov on a keyboard expressing
your ignorant viewpoint, without the benefot of facts to support your
view.
>> Clearly you are incapable of comprehension. The UN is not debating
>> this issue any more, they have recognised the legal occupation in Iraq
>> since May 2003. When are you going to learn - this matter is
>> resolved. Saddam was not disarming as required by the UN, therefore
>
>You lie again.
A simple google search reveals the following from
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
1483 (22 May 2003)
Lifts non-military sanctions (para 10)
Recognises Britain and the United States as occupying powers ('The
Authority'), and calls on them to attempt to improve security and
stability, and provide opportunities for the Iraqis to determine their
political future. Creates position of UN Special Representative to
Iraq, to coordinate UN activity. Requires establishment of Development
Fund for Iraq
You are wrong SKD, to have called me a liar. Aren't you embarrassed?
>> the CoW was justified in removing him. End of story.
>
>Your justification is premised on lies.
No, they are based on simple facts that anyone can discover for
themselves.
>You wish. With Persians
>gradually taking control of the Gulf, there is no wayout of answering
>to some very hard questions.
The Iraqi people are taking control of Iraq, exactly as it should be.
It must scare you to discover that the nonsense that you have believed
for the last year or so has proven to be bullshit. The US really is
intent on democratising Iraq.
>Tenet's bailed out, but it may not be the
>end of story for him either.
Tenet has a health problem. It would have taken a superhuman to have
withstood the pressure he was under, to have copped the blame for the
inaccuracies in the US intel on Iraqi WMD capabilities.
SKD
> On 4 Jun 2004 20:31:34 -0700, she...@hotmail.com (SKD) wrote:
>
> >gebe...@commander.com (Greig) wrote in message news:<40c0fc93....@news.supernews.com>...
> >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:51:23 +1000, "Gregory Shearman"
> >> <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:16:26 +1000, Greig wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 31 May 2004 11:40:54 +1000, "Gregory Shearman"
> >> >> <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:26:22 +0000, Greig wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and
> >> >>>> significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United
> >> >>>> Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery
> >> >>>> of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through
> >> >>>> the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information
> >> >>>> they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment
> >> >>>> and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared
> >> >>>> to the UN. "
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> As you can see, WMD's were not a "pure fabrication by Bush".
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Nope... nothing about WMDs in there.
> >> >>
> >> >> Clearly, you are blind.
> >> >
> >> >Clearly, you don't know the difference between drawings.... and WMD.
> >>
> >> The ISG found "physical evidence of equipment". Not "drawings".
> >
> >You lie.
>
> Can't you read? David Kay stated that the ISG found "physical
Can you think for yourself?
> evidence of equipment". The ISG is the only organisation on the
> ground in Iraq, and the only organisation capable of making comment on
> the current status of Iraqi disarmament. Now if what you are saying
> is: "the ISG is lying", well OK. Show your proof that they are
> lying. Otherwise you are just one more pov on a keyboard expressing
> your ignorant viewpoint, without the benefot of facts to support your
> view.
>
> >> Clearly you are incapable of comprehension. The UN is not debating
> >> this issue any more, they have recognised the legal occupation in Iraq
> >> since May 2003. When are you going to learn - this matter is
> >> resolved. Saddam was not disarming as required by the UN, therefore
> >
> >You lie again.
>
> A simple google search reveals the following from
> http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
Do you believe everything that gets posted on Google? Not that what
you have posted anything that substantiates your claims.
>
> 1483 (22 May 2003)
> Lifts non-military sanctions (para 10)
> Recognises Britain and the United States as occupying powers ('The
> Authority'), and calls on them to attempt to improve security and
> stability, and provide opportunities for the Iraqis to determine their
> political future. Creates position of UN Special Representative to
> Iraq, to coordinate UN activity. Requires establishment of Development
> Fund for Iraq
>
> You are wrong SKD, to have called me a liar. Aren't you embarrassed?
>
I am concerned about your state of mind to be honest.
> >> the CoW was justified in removing him. End of story.
> >
> >Your justification is premised on lies.
>
> No, they are based on simple facts that anyone can discover for
> themselves.
>
> >You wish. With Persians
> >gradually taking control of the Gulf, there is no wayout of answering
> >to some very hard questions.
>
> The Iraqi people are taking control of Iraq, exactly as it should be.
> It must scare you to discover that the nonsense that you have believed
> for the last year or so has proven to be bullshit. The US really is
> intent on democratising Iraq.
>
Only a bloody idiot won't be able to see that the enemy has encroached
the Gulf, blocked the passage to Eurasia, and is now setting sights on
Saudis.
> >Tenet's bailed out, but it may not be the
> >end of story for him either.
>
> Tenet has a health problem. It would have taken a superhuman to have
> withstood the pressure he was under, to have copped the blame for the
> inaccuracies in the US intel on Iraqi WMD capabilities.
What pressure, he knew what he was doing, there is a difference
between people like you and those who get to the top of an elite
organisation. Anyhow, I do regret having called you a liar for what
you said, much to my utter bewilderment, appears to have been said in
earnest.
Gregory Shearman
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:53:28 +0000, Greig wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:51:23 +1000, "Gregory Shearman"
> <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:16:26 +1000, Greig wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 31 May 2004 11:40:54 +1000, "Gregory Shearman"
>>> <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:26:22 +0000, Greig wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and
>>>>> significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United
>>>>> Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery
>>>>> of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through
>>>>> the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning
>>>>> information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence
>>>>> of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have
>>>>> been declared to the UN. "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As you can see, WMD's were not a "pure fabrication by Bush".
>>>>
>>>>Nope... nothing about WMDs in there.
>>>
>>> Clearly, you are blind.
>>
>>Clearly, you don't know the difference between drawings.... and WMD.
>
> The ISG found "physical evidence of equipment". Not "drawings".
What "physical evidence of equipment" is that? Paper and pencils?
> Clearly
> you are incapable of comprehension.
Clearly you have NO idea what a WMD is. Clearly you don't have an excuse
for the murder of 50000 Iraqis and the destruction of their country... the
tortures, the beatings, the mass graves in Fallujah...
> The UN is not debating this issue any
> more, they have recognised the legal occupation in Iraq since May 2003.
The US invaded... they accepted that the US invaded...
> When are you going to learn - this matter is resolved. Saddam was not
> disarming as required by the UN, therefore the CoW was justified in
> removing him. End of story.
The UN did NOT decide that Saddam hadn't disarmed. Nor did they decide to
invade. The USA invaded illegally. End of story.
Greig
<ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:53:28 +0000, Greig wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:51:23 +1000, "Gregory Shearman"
>> <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>> Clearly, you are blind.
>>>
>>>Clearly, you don't know the difference between drawings.... and WMD.
>>
>> The ISG found "physical evidence of equipment". Not "drawings".
>
>What "physical evidence of equipment" is that? Paper and pencils?
I cannot believe that after many many months, and having posted this
link to you as reference , you still haven't read it. The details of
what "physical evidence of equipment" refers to is listed in the
report, and there are even pictures for those challenged by the
concept of reading.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
>> Clearly
>> you are incapable of comprehension.
>
>Clearly you have NO idea what a WMD is. Clearly you don't have an excuse
This issue is resolved. The UN has recognised the legal occupation of
Iraq since May 2003.
>for the murder of 50000 Iraqis and the destruction of their country... the
>tortures, the beatings, the mass graves in Fallujah...
Mass graves? Now I think you are telling little fibs, Shearman, and I
would think that would make you a hypocrite.
>> The UN is not debating this issue any
>> more, they have recognised the legal occupation in Iraq since May 2003.
>
>The US invaded... they accepted that the US invaded...
Incorrect. They accepted the legal occupation of Iraq.
>> When are you going to learn - this matter is resolved. Saddam was not
>> disarming as required by the UN, therefore the CoW was justified in
>> removing him. End of story.
>
>The UN did NOT decide that Saddam hadn't disarmed.
Yes, they did. In may 2003 in UNSCR 1483 which states:
11. Reaffirms that Iraq must meet its disarmament obligations,
encourages the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
and the United States of America to keep the Council informed of their
activities in this regard, and underlinesthe intention of the Council
to revisit the mandates of the United Nations Monitoring,
Verification, and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic
Energy Agency as set forth in resolutions 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991,
1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and 1441 (2002) of 8 November 2002.
Now why would the UN issue this directive if they had not decided that
Iraq had not disarmed?
>Nor did they decide to
>invade. The USA invaded illegally. End of story.
[groan] You are stupid beyond belief.
Greig
Of course, but I am not encumbered by a tendency to believe in
conspiracy theories. I am capable of seeing the facts, and forming my
opinion based on that.
Those who question Kay's interim report, need to do so because the
report utterly destroys their preconcieved idea that Iraq was
disarming as required by the UN, that the US had acted improperly in
accusing Iraq of failing to disarm.
>> evidence of equipment". The ISG is the only organisation on the
>> ground in Iraq, and the only organisation capable of making comment on
>> the current status of Iraqi disarmament. Now if what you are saying
>> is: "the ISG is lying", well OK. Show your proof that they are
>> lying. Otherwise you are just one more pov on a keyboard expressing
>> your ignorant viewpoint, without the benefot of facts to support your
>> view.
>>
>> >> Clearly you are incapable of comprehension. The UN is not debating
>> >> this issue any more, they have recognised the legal occupation in Iraq
>> >> since May 2003. When are you going to learn - this matter is
>> >> resolved. Saddam was not disarming as required by the UN, therefore
>> >
>> >You lie again.
>>
>> A simple google search reveals the following from
>> http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
>
>Do you believe everything that gets posted on Google? Not that what
>you have posted anything that substantiates your claims.
It is better than forming a rigid opinion based on ignorance, and
trying to fit the facts to suit.
>> 1483 (22 May 2003)
>> Lifts non-military sanctions (para 10)
>> Recognises Britain and the United States as occupying powers ('The
>> Authority'), and calls on them to attempt to improve security and
>> stability, and provide opportunities for the Iraqis to determine their
>> political future. Creates position of UN Special Representative to
>> Iraq, to coordinate UN activity. Requires establishment of Development
>> Fund for Iraq
>>
>> You are wrong SKD, to have called me a liar. Aren't you embarrassed?
>>
>
>I am concerned about your state of mind to be honest.
The feeling is mutual.
Gregory Shearman
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 13:55:25 +1000, Greig wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 18:35:12 +1000, "Gregory Shearman"
> <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:53:28 +0000, Greig wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:51:23 +1000, "Gregory Shearman"
>>> <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> Clearly, you are blind.
>>>>
>>>>Clearly, you don't know the difference between drawings.... and WMD.
>>>
>>> The ISG found "physical evidence of equipment". Not "drawings".
>>
>>What "physical evidence of equipment" is that? Paper and pencils?
>
> I cannot believe that after many many months, and having posted this link
> to you as reference , you still haven't read it. The details of what
> "physical evidence of equipment" refers to is listed in the report, and
> there are even pictures for those challenged by the concept of reading.
Pictures of WMD? Of course not...
No WMD were found, were they?
The USA lied about WMD, didn't they?
>>> Clearly
>>> you are incapable of comprehension.
>>
>>Clearly you have NO idea what a WMD is. Clearly you don't have an excuse
>
> This issue is resolved. The UN has recognised the legal occupation of
> Iraq since May 2003.
No. They've recognised the invasion. This means that the USA is now
responsible for the security of the Iraqi people. The USA have done a
pathetic job... they are burying their dead in football fields in Fallujah.
...mass graves, torture... indiscriminant killing of civilians....
>>for the murder of 50000 Iraqis and the destruction of their country...
>>the tortures, the beatings, the mass graves in Fallujah...
>
> Mass graves? Now I think you are telling little fibs, Shearman, and I
> would think that would make you a hypocrite.
Really? They buried their dead in mass graves in Fallujah... on what was
previously football fields.
>>> The UN is not debating this issue any more, they have recognised the
>>> legal occupation in Iraq since May 2003.
>>
>>The US invaded... they accepted that the US invaded...
>
> Incorrect. They accepted the legal occupation of Iraq.
Nope.
>>The UN did NOT decide that Saddam hadn't disarmed.
>
> Yes, they did. In may 2003 in UNSCR 1483 which states:
>
> 11. Reaffirms that Iraq must meet its disarmament obligations, encourages
> the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United
> States of America to keep the Council informed of their activities in this
> regard, and underlinesthe intention of the Council to revisit the mandates
> of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission
> and the International Atomic Energy Agency as set forth in resolutions 687
> (1991) of 3 April 1991, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and 1441 (2002)
> of 8 November 2002.
Irrelevant.
Your argument falls over.
> Now why would the UN issue this directive if they had not decided that
> Iraq had not disarmed?
Yep.
> [groan] You are stupid beyond belief.
You are an apologist for murder and torture. You are an apologist for
dictatorship and lies.
Forget arguing further. You are a waste of time.
Greig
<ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 13:55:25 +1000, Greig wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 18:35:12 +1000, "Gregory Shearman"
>> <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> I cannot believe that after many many months, and having posted this link
>> to you as reference , you still haven't read it. The details of what
>> "physical evidence of equipment" refers to is listed in the report, and
>> there are even pictures for those challenged by the concept of reading.
>
>Pictures of WMD? Of course not...
>
>No WMD were found, were they?
Pictures of "physical evidence of equipment". Please try to stay on
topic, I know it is hard.
>The USA lied about WMD, didn't they?
Of course not. They only knew what the UN intel said. and the UN
intel said that Iraq had WMD. Nobody lied, they just didn't have the
correct intel.
>>>> Clearly
>>>> you are incapable of comprehension.
>>>
>>>Clearly you have NO idea what a WMD is. Clearly you don't have an excuse
>>
>> This issue is resolved. The UN has recognised the legal occupation of
>> Iraq since May 2003.
>
>No. They've recognised the invasion.
No Shearman. They have recognised the occupation. It is legal.
...
>>>The UN did NOT decide that Saddam hadn't disarmed.
>>
>> Yes, they did. In may 2003 in UNSCR 1483 which states:
>>
>> 11. Reaffirms that Iraq must meet its disarmament obligations, encourages
>> the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United
>> States of America to keep the Council informed of their activities in this
>> regard, and underlinesthe intention of the Council to revisit the mandates
>> of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission
>> and the International Atomic Energy Agency as set forth in resolutions 687
>> (1991) of 3 April 1991, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and 1441 (2002)
>> of 8 November 2002.
>
>Irrelevant.
Ah, but it IS relevant.
>Your argument falls over.
The above statement is not an argument, it is the actual UN document
which proves that the UN still required Iraq to disarm. If the UN
though that Iraq HAD disarmed, why would they issue the above?
Rummij
That's right. It would also be odd for coalition partners to attempt
to justify an invasion with evidence that they knew to be false,
considering that the invasion itself would definitively prove it
wrong. Why would they do that? Why would they go through the charade
of looking for WMD that they knew were not there? Even if their lying
and bad faith got them into this situation, why would they then not
just plant WMD? There are plenty of good arguments against the war,
but the 'based on a lie' one makes no sense whatsoever.
1) There was (and still is) a large inventory of Iraqi WMD
*unnacounted for*. There is little evidence that it exists now, but
also little evidence that it was destroyed. This was the view of the
UN inspection team in early 2003 and as far as I know is not disputed
by any of the governmments on the Security Council, including the ones
who opposed the war.
2) There is a large, well organised, well funded international
terrorist organisation that has made no secret that it wants to
acquire WMDs for terrorist attacks.
3) Regardless of whether Saddam had links to it or not, he had no
interest in not dealing with it. What would he care?
Some people might be prepared to extend the benefit of the doubt in
this situation. Others would see it as a pretty risky set of factors.