How do native western Europeans feel?

[Mindful]

But back to an original premise; and supposition.

How might Iraq have fared if the King had not been killed?

The UN had already got Saddam to destroy his weapons. Step One of the UN mission had thus been accomplished. Step Two was of equal importance, that being cooperating with Saddam over the (first) CIA inspection team, removing it, and replacing it with an international team eager to find out the truth. Perhaps for the first time Saddam could feel the UN was not entirely in Washington's back pocket and that it would move forward justly. We can only speculate on any further cooperation because the US violated international law and murdered him. We'll never know for sure. We can only say that with the UN calling the shots there was at least a chance. All good things begin with an opportunity.

How many times must I make this point ?

THERE WAS NEVER ANY PROOF AVAILABLE THAT SADDAM HAD DESTROYED HIS 'WEAPONS' (I.E WMDS). THE WHOLE POINT WAS TO EITHER GET THAT PROOF, OR TO SEE TO IT THAT SADDAM'S REGIME COULDN'T USE ANY.

Is this clear yet ????

Prevarication from Saddam prevented this from ever being established, one way or the other. Question .. if you've got nothing to hide, why not be straightforward and candid about the full truth ? Saddam was never any of that, he couldn't be trusted, so, action was rendered necessary.

Action was duly taken. It had to be.

I remember Hans Blix expressing doubts about the paperwork UN weapons inspectors were examining.

 

[GLASNOST]

Not to worry, love.

 

[montelatici]

But back to an original premise; and supposition.

How might Iraq have fared if the King had not been killed?

The UN had already got Saddam to destroy his weapons. Step One of the UN mission had thus been accomplished. Step Two was of equal importance, that being cooperating with Saddam over the (first) CIA inspection team, removing it, and replacing it with an international team eager to find out the truth. Perhaps for the first time Saddam could feel the UN was not entirely in Washington's back pocket and that it would move forward justly. We can only speculate on any further cooperation because the US violated international law and murdered him. We'll never know for sure. We can only say that with the UN calling the shots there was at least a chance. All good things begin with an opportunity.

How many times must I make this point ?

THERE WAS NEVER ANY PROOF AVAILABLE THAT SADDAM HAD DESTROYED HIS 'WEAPONS' (I.E WMDS). THE WHOLE POINT WAS TO EITHER GET THAT PROOF, OR TO SEE TO IT THAT SADDAM'S REGIME COULDN'T USE ANY.

Is this clear yet ????

Prevarication from Saddam prevented this from ever being established, one way or the other. Question .. if you've got nothing to hide, why not be straightforward and candid about the full truth ? Saddam was never any of that, he couldn't be trusted, so, action was rendered necessary.

Action was duly taken. It had to be.

The U.S. was well aware that Iraq had no WMDs. The Iraqi government stated clearly they had no WMDs. The UN was convinced that Iraq had no WMDs. You are full of crap.

 

[Vikrant]

I think I got muddled up on the threads, so was talking at cross purposes. Sorry about that.

No,it's me. I realized it afterward but I'd already put so much effort into my reply that just left it be, hoping you'd be sympathetic and not tell me what an idiot I am. Sorry .......

I've been replying on here to stuff from another thread. lol

Don't know how that happened.

Take your brain for tune up and oil change

 

[Mindful]

I think I got muddled up on the threads, so was talking at cross purposes. Sorry about that.

No,it's me. I realized it afterward but I'd already put so much effort into my reply that just left it be, hoping you'd be sympathetic and not tell me what an idiot I am. Sorry .......

I've been replying on here to stuff from another thread. lol

Don't know how that happened.

Take your brain for tune up and oil change

I'vecome to the right place, haven't I?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Not that im against muslims, im totally not

Then you're naive.

 

[GLASNOST]

I remember Hans Blix expressing doubts about the paperwork UN weapons inspectors were examining.

Can you put that statement into perspective, please.

 

[Mindful]

I remember Hans Blix expressing doubts about the paperwork UN weapons inspectors were examining.

Can you put that statement into perspective, please.

But even today Hans Blix believes the Iraqis could have done more to verify the unilateral destruction. He believes limited paperwork did survive. More importantly, they could have provided scientists for interview. There was also the issue of the Iraqis’ bizarre behaviour during inspections, particularly at presidential sites where they would frequently bar access. ‘When we finally got in, we would find nothing,’ says Dr. Blix. ‘We even looked in the refrigerator. We found marmalade.’ Why behave as if they had something to hide if they didn’t?

What Did Happen To Saddam’s WMD? | History Today

 

[GLASNOST]

But even today Hans Blix believes the Iraqis could have done more to verify the unilateral destruction.

No doubt.

Why behave as if they had something to hide if they didn’t?

You've quoted a paragraph of Hans Blix (sorry that I've omitted it), but these words (quoted here) are yours, correct? Blix never would have asked that question ... he was there ... he understood. Not everyone is happy when forced to do something they don't really want to do. Particularly when forced by someone whose authority one doesn't even want to acknowledge. Remember also that Saddam wanted to look tough in the region and the inspection team must have been a great embarrassment to him. "Give them what they want, but make it as difficult for them as possible". Not the first time we've heard that. I've spent quite some time in the Arab world and in Africa and I don't think Saddam dragging his feet was out of the ordinary in the least.

Ps. I only looked at the headline of that link. In relationship to chemical weapons, it says, '..... by the time American and British troops entered the country in 2003 they were gone'. That really put me off. I'm sure the article is not unbiased. The thing is poison.

 

[Mindful]

But even today Hans Blix believes the Iraqis could have done more to verify the unilateral destruction.

No doubt.

Why behave as if they had something to hide if they didn’t?

You've quoted a paragraph of Hans Blix (sorry that I've omitted it), but these words (quoted here) are yours, correct? Blix never would have asked that question ... he was there ... he understood. Not everyone is happy when forced to do something they don't really want to do. Particularly when forced by someone whose authority one doesn't even want to acknowledge. Remember also that Saddam wanted to look tough in the region and the inspection team must have been a great embarrassment to him. "Give them what they want, but make it as difficult for them as possible". Not the first time we've heard that. I've spent quite some time in the Arab world and in Africa and I don't think Saddam dragging his feet was out of the ordinary in the least.

Ps. I only looked at the headline of that link. In relationship to chemical weapons, it says, '..... by the time American and British troops entered the country in 2003 they were gone'. That really put me off. I'm sure the article is not unbiased. The thing is poison.

I provided a link with his quote.

And I seem to vaguely remember his saying as much, during an interview, when he and his weapons inspectors were all over the News channels.

 

[GLASNOST]

I provided a link with his quote. And I seem to vaguely remember his saying as much, during an interview, when he and his weapons inspectors were all over the News channels.

Yes, I realize that but these words (following) are yours ... not his.

'Why behave as if they had something to hide if they didn’t?'

Am I right? What he said is not connected with what you said. It's a very big difference.

 

[Mindful]

I provided a link with his quote. And I seem to vaguely remember his saying as much, during an interview, when he and his weapons inspectors were all over the News channels.

Yes, I realize that but these words (following) are yours ... not his.

'Why behave as if they had something to hide if they didn’t?'

Am I right? What he said is not connected with what you said. It's a very big difference.

I didn't say that. The article did.

 

[GLASNOST]

I didn't say that. The article did.

From you ... from the reporter ... from the columnist ...... from your brother-in-law ..... let's not misunderstand, alright? It is NOT included within quotation points as coming from Hans Blix's mouth or pen. THIS IS THE POINT.

 

[Unkotare]

I didn't say that. The article did.

From you ... from the reporter ... from the columnist ...... from your brother-in-law ..... let's not misunderstand, alright? It is NOT included within quotation points as coming from Hans Blix's mouth or pen. THIS IS THE POINT.

What is your nationality?

 

[Drummond]

But back to an original premise; and supposition.

How might Iraq have fared if the King had not been killed?

The UN had already got Saddam to destroy his weapons. Step One of the UN mission had thus been accomplished. Step Two was of equal importance, that being cooperating with Saddam over the (first) CIA inspection team, removing it, and replacing it with an international team eager to find out the truth. Perhaps for the first time Saddam could feel the UN was not entirely in Washington's back pocket and that it would move forward justly. We can only speculate on any further cooperation because the US violated international law and murdered him. We'll never know for sure. We can only say that with the UN calling the shots there was at least a chance. All good things begin with an opportunity.

How many times must I make this point ?

THERE WAS NEVER ANY PROOF AVAILABLE THAT SADDAM HAD DESTROYED HIS 'WEAPONS' (I.E WMDS). THE WHOLE POINT WAS TO EITHER GET THAT PROOF, OR TO SEE TO IT THAT SADDAM'S REGIME COULDN'T USE ANY.

Is this clear yet ????

Prevarication from Saddam prevented this from ever being established, one way or the other. Question .. if you've got nothing to hide, why not be straightforward and candid about the full truth ? Saddam was never any of that, he couldn't be trusted, so, action was rendered necessary.

Action was duly taken. It had to be.

The U.S. was well aware that Iraq had no WMDs. The Iraqi government stated clearly they had no WMDs. The UN was convinced that Iraq had no WMDs. You are full of crap.

Nope. YOU are.

The US had absolutely no way of knowing any such thing. No verification of the total destruction of Saddam's stocks was ever made ... partly because the exact numbers of that stock itself hadn't been established, partly also because no proof was ever offered of quantities destroyed. All the UN, and the US, had .. was a bland statement from Saddam's regime to say that none were held.

Perhaps you think that just taking Saddam's word for it, was all that anyone ever needed. But that makes no actual sense in the real world. Verification was wanted. Verification was never achieved.

 

[Vagabond63]

Verification was never achieved.

It wasn't allowed to be. Bush wanted war despit Blix stating publicly that only a few more months were needed for his team to complete their work. Even after the war the US led teams found nothing of substance.

 

[GLASNOST]

Verification was never achieved.

...... Blix stating publicly that only a few more months were needed for his team to complete their work ......

My assumption is that it was a matter of a few days. There were 12 sites on the list that the Americans claimed there were WMD's. Blix and his team had already inspected 11 of them. They were all clean. Washington's problem is that the UN tossed out the first inspection team that was riddled with CIA spies. Their plan (fairly obvious) was to plant false evidence and thus get permission to make a legal invasion of the country. But without their spies they had to rely on fact instead. After 11 of 12 sites being inspected the new inspection team was on the very last stage of their mission. Washington panicked and invaded illegally instead, rather than wait for total verification of all the 12 sites and thwart US's invasion plans of a LEGAL war.

 

[Drummond]

Verification was never achieved.

...... Blix stating publicly that only a few more months were needed for his team to complete their work ......

My assumption is that it was a matter of a few days. There were 12 sites on the list that the Americans claimed there were WMD's. Blix and his team had already inspected 11 of them. They were all clean. Washington's problem is that the UN tossed out the first inspection team that was riddled with CIA spies. Their plan (fairly obvious) was to plant false evidence and thus get permission to make a legal invasion of the country. But without their spies they had to rely on fact instead. After 11 of 12 sites being inspected the new inspection team was on the very last stage of their mission. Washington panicked and invaded illegally instead, rather than wait for total verification of all the 12 sites and thwart US's invasion plans of a LEGAL war.

.. eh ?

This is all fantasy stuff.

An inspection team, 'riddled with CIA spies'. An intention 'to plant false evidence' .. etc.

Glasnost, I invite you to provide your evidence for any of this.

[It's always the same with conspiracy propaganda. First, you have to wait a very appreciable amount of time before ever offering it (credibility demands it). During that time, you have to build on it, so as to lend the smallest credibility. It helps if memories dim in the interim, of course ! ]

Funny how none of this ever came to light, from my recollection, at any time during 2003. Or 2004. Or 2005. Etc ...

 

[xband]

Verification was never achieved.

It wasn't allowed to be. Bush wanted war despit Blix stating publicly that only a few more months were needed for his team to complete their work. Even after the war the US led teams found nothing of substance.

Just a far flung guess and you may be right about Bush 2. After Gulf 1 Saddam had a mosaic tile on the floor to the entrance of the only hotel in Bagdad that foreigners could stay in. The mosaic tile depicted a giant picture of Bush 1 that had to be walked over. That would piss off me too.

 

[Vagabond63]

Verification was never achieved.

...... Blix stating publicly that only a few more months were needed for his team to complete their work ......

My assumption is that it was a matter of a few days. There were 12 sites on the list that the Americans claimed there were WMD's. Blix and his team had already inspected 11 of them. They were all clean. Washington's problem is that the UN tossed out the first inspection team that was riddled with CIA spies. Their plan (fairly obvious) was to plant false evidence and thus get permission to make a legal invasion of the country. But without their spies they had to rely on fact instead. After 11 of 12 sites being inspected the new inspection team was on the very last stage of their mission. Washington panicked and invaded illegally instead, rather than wait for total verification of all the 12 sites and thwart US's invasion plans of a LEGAL war.

.. eh ?

This is all fantasy stuff.

An inspection team, 'riddled with CIA spies'. An intention 'to plant false evidence' .. etc.

Glasnost, I invite you to provide your evidence for any of this.

[It's always the same with conspiracy propaganda. First, you have to wait a very appreciable amount of time before ever offering it (credibility demands it). During that time, you have to build on it, so as to lend the smallest credibility. It helps if memories dim in the interim, of course ! ]

Funny how none of this ever came to light, from my recollection, at any time during 2003. Or 2004. Or 2005. Etc ...

Did you look or were you carried away with jingoism and war fever?