Ex-U.S. Arms Hunter Kay Says No Stockpiles in Iraq

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by jimnyc
The sanctions were in place to try and get Iraq to comply with resolutions he refused to abide by. There was an oil for food program setup, it's hardly the fault of the USA that Saddam destroyed that as well. Medical assistance was shipped in and Saddam used that for personal gain as well. The intent was certainly not to harm the Iraqi people, that honor falls on Saddam's shoulders. Saddam could have stopped the oppression. Saddam could have cooperated with Kuwait and return their belongings. Saddam could have fully disarmed and fully cooperated with weapons inspectors. Had he done this things the sanctions would have been lifted and war averted.



Now your strictly going on propaganda and opinion. As previously stated, had Saddam fully and unconditionally cooperated I'm confident we would have seen a different outcome.



All I know is that I don't want to live in the world I saw on 9/11. I also suspect the Iraqi people didn't want to live in a world of oppression. I don't think the entire Middle East wanted to live in a world threatened by their neighbors. The sanctions and reolutions were designed to be preventative and failed. I feel the war was necessary to ensure there the freedom of the Iraqi's. It was Saddam's responsibility to come clean with the WMD and he failed to do so. We needed to then ensure the safety of the region and possibly America ourselves.

I know you've stated in many other threads about the WMD. Let me bring something up to you that no one else has yet. Saddam declared tons of chemical weapons in 1998. These weapons and chemicals were verified by weapons inspectors shortly before being thrown out in 1998. When they returned years later these weapons and chemicals couldn't be accounted for. Inspectors repeatedly asked for their whereabouts or proof of their destruction. Saddam failed to answer. What do you suppose happened to these thousands upon thousands of liters of chemicals? Should we just have chalked it up as a mistake?

Oh, I suppose we were to expect a ruthless dictator who lives in magnificant palaces and to whom money is no object to give a damn that our sanctions are starving Iraqi children to death. Right. As if we didn't know Hussein wouldn't give a damn. Sure.

Propaganda and opinion? I have provide you the historical facts that lead me to believe Shrub didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people - i.e. all US Presidents before him, of either party, have histrocial not given a crap about oppressed peoples. And in case you didn't notice, when Shrub speaks, I tend not to believe, apparently his advisors are incapable of providing him with factual information. And I ask you again, had Saddam agreed to inspections, how would that have freed the Iraqi people?


"All I know is that I don't want to live in the world I saw on 9/11."

If that's all you know, you don't know much. Hussein didn't cause 9/11, for one thing, is that a relevant fact or can we ignore it because all we need to know is we don't want another 9/11? You know all the Germans knew is they didn't want to go through another severe economic depression, so they killed 6 million Jews. Of course if history were anything relevant to you, you would have known that.

"We needed to then ensure the safety of the region and possibly America ourselves."

First off, the purpose of the US military isn't to ensure the safety of the middle east. Secondly, you readily admit that Hussen was only "possibly" a threat, which means war might have been avoided, and yet you would prefer war be a certainty.


Easy. Totalitarian regimes are based on lies. Like "we produced X amount of rice this year" when only X/2 amount was produced. People who work in totalitarian regimes are pressured to satsify their superiors or face possible death. If you're making WMD in Iraq and Hussein wants X amount of WMD made and you can only make 3/4 X of WMD, are you going to tell him the truth and possibly be executed? No. Of course not, you're going to forge documents and fake results and do whatever it takes to make the dictator thinks he actually has X WMD when he only has 3/4 X. Hence the "unacounted for" WMD may actually be WMD that was never produced. It may not be the right explanation, but its a lot more plausible that "rather than running at the first sign of trouble he took the time to bury his WMD in the desert"

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Oh, I suppose we were to expect a ruthless dictator who lives in magnificant palaces and to whom money is no object to give a damn that our sanctions are starving Iraqi children to death. Right. As if we didn't know Hussein wouldn't give a damn. Sure.

I'm not going to reply to your condescending attitude.

Propaganda and opinion? I have provide you the historical facts that lead me to believe Shrub didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people - i.e. all US Presidents before him, of either party, have histrocial not given a crap about oppressed peoples. And in case you didn't notice, when Shrub speaks, I tend not to believe, apparently his advisors are incapable of providing him with factual information. And I ask you again, had Saddam agreed to inspections, how would that have freed the Iraqi people?

Bush is not history, he is our current leader. If you don't believe him that is your right. Had Saddam abided by the resolutions (notice I didn't say inspections earlier) he would have stopped the oppression of his people - in effect 'freeing' them from the atrocities.

"All I know is that I don't want to live in the world I saw on 9/11."

If that's all you know, you don't know much. Hussein didn't cause 9/11, for one thing, is that a relevant fact or can we ignore it because all we need to know is we don't want another 9/11? You know all the Germans knew is they didn't want to go through another severe economic depression, so they killed 6 million Jews. Of course if history were anything relevant to you, you would have known that.

Again, I'm not going to discuss issues with someone who has a condescending attitude. It's becoming abundantly clear why the other members here are attacking you for your replies.

"We needed to then ensure the safety of the region and possibly America ourselves."

First off, the purpose of the US military isn't to ensure the safety of the middle east. Secondly, you readily admit that Hussen was only "possibly" a threat, which means war might have been avoided, and yet you would prefer war be a certainty.

I believe as the worlds superpower it is our duty to assist other less capable nations. It was Saddam's responsibility to remove the doubt of the 'possibility'. He didn't.

Easy. Totalitarian regimes are based on lies. Like "we produced X amount of rice this year" when only X/2 amount was produced. People who work in totalitarian regimes are pressured to satsify their superiors or face possible death. If you're making WMD in Iraq and Hussein wants X amount of WMD made and you can only make 3/4 X of WMD, are you going to tell him the truth and possibly be executed? No. Of course not, you're going to forge documents and fake results and do whatever it takes to make the dictator thinks he actually has X WMD when he only has 3/4 X. Hence the "unacounted for" WMD may actually be WMD that was never produced. It may not be the right explanation, but its a lot more plausible that "rather than running at the first sign of trouble he took the time to bury his WMD in the desert"

I guess you missed the part where I stated the inspectors had accounted for the chemicals in 1998. These weren't US inspectors, they were UN inspectors. Hans Blix reported as much to the UN that they have failed to provide the chemicals or documentation to prove their destruction. He further reported that they even failed to respond to the specific requests. In other words, they ignored him.

If you continue in your childish and condescending tone, this will be my last reply to you.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's not condescending, its sarcasm, learn the difference. (That for example, was condescending). Thought I suspect you refuse to reply to it mostly because you know that no reasonable person could possibly expect a ruthless dictator to respond to sanctions that don't effect his standard of living one iota.

Bush is not history, he is our current leader. If you don't believe him that is your right. Had Saddam abided by the resolutions (notice I didn't say inspections earlier) he would have stopped the oppression of his people - in effect 'freeing' them from the atrocities.

Bush is not history, but history is relevant, and when the history indicates US Presidents don't really give a damn about oppressed peoples, I'm going to find it hard to believe when one claims he does. Especially since Shrub wasn't requiring Hussein to comply with all UN resolutions, just the ones related to WMD, so I ask yet again how the Iraqi people would had been freed had Saddam complied with inspections and hence we not invaded?



"I believe as the worlds superpower it is our duty to assist other less capable nations."


No, it isn't, that's where you're wrong. But as all you know is that you don't want another 9/11 again, that's not surprising. Open your mind, there is much more to life that simply not wanting another 9/11.


"I guess you missed the part where I stated the inspectors had accounted for the chemicals in 1998. "

And how did they account for them?


(reply complete)


Listen man, I'm really not trying to be condescending. I grew up in an Italian American familiy, and, well, that pretty much means you're not going to get the sarcasm out of me unless you kill me. I grew up with it. It's a tool I use to get points across, if you don't like it or don't think its effective, fine, but please don't be offended.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
It's not condescending, its sarcasm, learn the difference. (That for example, was condescending). Thought I suspect you refuse to reply to it mostly because you know that no reasonable person could possibly expect a ruthless dictator to respond to sanctions that don't effect his standard of living one iota.




(Full reply to come later)

Sarcasm IS condescending when your debating opponent is NOT being sarcastic and is being quite respectful in his replies. You complain about the way people reply to you here. I then reply in a manner more suitable to your liking and you give me the same treatment. Good luck with the rest of the members here, I doubt they will extend you the same courtesy.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And yet you still can't tell me how a reasonable person should expect a ruthless dictator to comply with sanctions to help his people when not doing so does not harm him one bit, can you? If you had bothered to give a damn about the point I was making instead of whining and complaining about a non-existant condescending attitude because you happen to not understand sarcasm you might have come up with an answer by now.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Awe shucks I accidently started a new reply when I wanted to edit an old one again. Feel free to kill this one moderators.



But in the meantime....

GEAUX TIGAHS!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
And yet you still can't tell me how a reasonable person should expect a ruthless dictator to comply with sanctions to help his people when not doing so does not harm him one bit, can you? If you had bothered to give a damn about the point I was making instead of whining and complaining about a non-existant condescending attitude because you happen to not understand sarcasm you might have come up with an answer by now.

Whining and complaining?

You're on your last leg here, pal. Keep it up and you're history. I'm one of the rare few here who have given you the benefit of courtesy and respect. Fuck with me and you're gone.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Whining and complaining?

You're on your last leg here, pal. Keep it up and you're history. I'm one of the rare few here who have given you the benefit of courtesy and respect. Fuck with me and you're gone.

I just thought of a way I can avoid fucking with you for good.
(PS I completed my above reply)

(time goes by)


Well dammit that didn't work.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
I just thought of a way I can avoid fucking with you for good.
(PS I completed my above reply)

I hope it's by either becoming a bit more respectful, or leaving. Nothing else will be acceptable.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Sir, how can a reasonable person expect a ruthless dictator to comply with sanctions to help his people when not doing so does not harm him one bit? Thank you.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Sir, how can a reasonable person expect a ruthless dictator to comply with sanctions to help his people when not doing so does not harm him one bit? Thank you.

Because the threat of removal and further sanctions might make him think twice and decide to comply. It's a first step in the process. Although his history would make one believe that he has no heart and could care less for his people, the option to change and make amends was the right thing to do. Sanctions have worked against many nations in the past. The UN collectively thought this was the best decision to try and force Saddam and his regime to comply.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Because the threat of removal and further sanctions might make him think twice and decide to comply. It's a first step in the process. Although his history would make one believe that he has no heart and could care less for his people, the option to change and make amends was the right thing to do. Sanctions have worked against many nations in the past. The UN collectively thought this was the best decision to try and force Saddam and his regime to comply.

I'm failing to see how these sanctions threatened to remove him from power. All they did was starve Iraqi children to death while Saddam sat up in his palace thumbing his nose at the UN and saying "Sanctions? What, me worry?"

What nations have sanctions worked against in the past? Certainly not Cuba. Do you have any similar examples, involving a ruthless dictator and economic sanctions that effect him personally very little?

 

[Annie]

I'm failing to see how these sanctions threatened to remove him from power. All they did was starve Iraqi children to death while Saddam sat up in his palace thumbing his nose at the UN and saying "Sanctions? What, me worry?"

Seems to me that the "Oil for Food" Program was instituted to prevent the starvation and lack of medicine in Iraq. The fact that Saddam and the UN found it a way for him to remain in power, while enriching individuals is being ignored by some here.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
I'm failing to see how these sanctions threatened to remove him from power. All they did was starve Iraqi children to death while Saddam sat up in his palace thumbing his nose at the UN and saying "Sanctions? What, me worry?"

What nations have sanctions worked against in the past? Certainly not Cuba. Do you have any similar examples, involving a ruthless dictator and economic sanctions that effect him personally very little?

But isn't that 1 of the anti-war crowds mantras? "If we only let the sanctions work". Your arguements are bankrupt of any logic.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I want to hear the anti-Bush people say that the Democrats lied when they said Iraq had WMD. Of course, they will never do that because if Democrats and Bush say the same things, it is only a lie when Bush says it but not when the Democrats say it.

 

[The Worried One]

It was under my impression that Hans Blix also said there wasn't enough evidence to go into war. Furthermore, if we were to go into war, we should have had all the nations of the UN agree to it, that way we'd have a plan for reconstruction. We have soldiers doing work they weren't trained to do, we got in there fine, but getting out is going to be a lot harder.