PhillyKev 0 #1 January 23, 2004 David Kay stepped down as leader of the U.S. hunt for banned weapons in Iraq (news - web sites) on Friday and said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040123/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #2 January 23, 2004 QuoteDavid Kay ... said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. Quote Dog bites man.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Slappie 9 #3 January 23, 2004 QuoteDavid Kay stepped down as leader of the U.S. hunt for banned weapons in Iraq (news - web sites) on Friday and said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040123/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc I watched Frontline - Chasing Saddam's Weapons about this lastnight on PBS was a pretty telling story about the IGS and Kay himself. He started out all gung ho about the WMD and by the time the show was over he was pretty much wore out and resolute to the fact there are no stockpiles of WMD. Personaly I agree with the sumation Frontline put on the ending of the show. How it was probably a showdown of "bluffs" GWB warned Saddam, Saddam didn't think GWB has the balls to invade his country. In the end Saddam pays the price for a poorly executed bluff.. He lost everything he ever had and more... his freedom. "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #4 January 23, 2004 Quote In the end Saddam pays the price for a poorly executed bluff.. He lost everything he ever had and more... his freedom. That's not the "In the end".... In the end, our great grandchildren read about the man who bombed and invaded a country with what he called solid evidence that WMD were there... only to be proven a liar... with no repercussions I might add. Bluff? What bluff? Saddam said he had weapons at one point. Sure, that was a bluff. But remember he eventually admitted that it was such... he complied with resolutions allowing people to search... and find nothing. So America Scorches the place and looks again and what do they find? The world's most renowned terrorist... is much closer to home. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Slappie 9 #5 January 23, 2004 You took my quote out of context. I was only commenting on the show I had watch about this topic. I wasn't and won't get into the political bs surrounding what GWB did. I was once a rabid (yes I said rabid) defender of our president. I have since changed my mind. The turning point was 3 months into the ivasion of Iraq (yes I said invasion).. Enough said. Please next time you quote me use it in context to what I was actually talking about. Thanks "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #6 January 23, 2004 QuoteDavid Kay... said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. How large is "large"? Since only small amounts of this material can kill thousands of people, it doesn't matter how "large" it was. And this is also an admission that Sadam did possess these weapons, and the only question is in what quantities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #7 January 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteDavid Kay... said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. How large is "large"? Since only small amounts of this material can kill thousands of people, it doesn't matter how "large" it was. And this is also an admission that Sadam did possess these weapons, and the only question is in what quantities. Did you read the article? Those questions were addressed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiverRick 0 #8 January 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteDavid Kay... said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. How large is "large"? Since only small amounts of this material can kill thousands of people, it doesn't matter how "large" it was. And this is also an admission that Sadam did possess these weapons, and the only question is in what quantities. The lefties argue that we sold WMDs to SH. Then they say that he didn't have any. It's so confusing. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites usmcrigger 0 #9 January 23, 2004 Goose I ask you if the cops raid a house where they have probable cause to believe there are drugs, but find none and instead find neglected and abused children should they do nothing or protect the children. I see Iraq as the same situation. Yes, GWB may have had bad intel about WMD, but in the end what we have accomplished over there is still the right thing to do. I will be sure, always SEMPER FI Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #10 January 23, 2004 It's not that hard to follow.... We sold him WMD in the 80's. We invaded in the 90's. We demanded he get rid of them and sent in UN inspectors. He got rid of the WMD. We claimed he still had them and invaded again. What's so confusing about that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #11 January 23, 2004 Quotebut in the end what we have accomplished over there is still the right thing to do. Right thing to do for whom? In what way? For these guys? http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/. They're all dead. There's small news clips about them every day. What about these guys? http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/gallery.htm. They don't make the news, they're only missing limbs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiverRick 0 #12 January 23, 2004 He got rid of the WMD. What did he do, flush them down the toilet? never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #13 January 23, 2004 We'd know the answer to that if the UN wasn't pulled out because of imminent invasion. They were in the process of gathering info about the status of the WMD which no longer exist as stated by the guy in charge of finding them now. They could have sold them to Syria, for all we know. But we'll never find out now. The inspectors may have been able to come up with something, but we'll never know because GWB had to go off half-cocked, literally. With not enough troops to do the job and with no plan in place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BBKid 0 #14 January 23, 2004 QuoteHe got rid of the WMD. What did he do, flush them down the toilet? It's well known that the UN inspectors were observing and assisting in their destruction. Although the Iraqi people are/will be/won't be better off without Saddam, there's the small matter of breaking international law (the bit about removing foreign heads of state by force when not in time of war). But then again, breaking international law only matters when it's the people who talk funny who do it. I'm desperately hoping Blair has to resign over all the shit he's dropped my country into, that way we might get a leader who doesn't bend over for Bush. Nick --------------------------- "I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slappie 9 #3 January 23, 2004 QuoteDavid Kay stepped down as leader of the U.S. hunt for banned weapons in Iraq (news - web sites) on Friday and said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040123/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc I watched Frontline - Chasing Saddam's Weapons about this lastnight on PBS was a pretty telling story about the IGS and Kay himself. He started out all gung ho about the WMD and by the time the show was over he was pretty much wore out and resolute to the fact there are no stockpiles of WMD. Personaly I agree with the sumation Frontline put on the ending of the show. How it was probably a showdown of "bluffs" GWB warned Saddam, Saddam didn't think GWB has the balls to invade his country. In the end Saddam pays the price for a poorly executed bluff.. He lost everything he ever had and more... his freedom. "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #4 January 23, 2004 Quote In the end Saddam pays the price for a poorly executed bluff.. He lost everything he ever had and more... his freedom. That's not the "In the end".... In the end, our great grandchildren read about the man who bombed and invaded a country with what he called solid evidence that WMD were there... only to be proven a liar... with no repercussions I might add. Bluff? What bluff? Saddam said he had weapons at one point. Sure, that was a bluff. But remember he eventually admitted that it was such... he complied with resolutions allowing people to search... and find nothing. So America Scorches the place and looks again and what do they find? The world's most renowned terrorist... is much closer to home. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slappie 9 #5 January 23, 2004 You took my quote out of context. I was only commenting on the show I had watch about this topic. I wasn't and won't get into the political bs surrounding what GWB did. I was once a rabid (yes I said rabid) defender of our president. I have since changed my mind. The turning point was 3 months into the ivasion of Iraq (yes I said invasion).. Enough said. Please next time you quote me use it in context to what I was actually talking about. Thanks "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #6 January 23, 2004 QuoteDavid Kay... said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. How large is "large"? Since only small amounts of this material can kill thousands of people, it doesn't matter how "large" it was. And this is also an admission that Sadam did possess these weapons, and the only question is in what quantities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #7 January 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteDavid Kay... said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. How large is "large"? Since only small amounts of this material can kill thousands of people, it doesn't matter how "large" it was. And this is also an admission that Sadam did possess these weapons, and the only question is in what quantities. Did you read the article? Those questions were addressed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #8 January 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteDavid Kay... said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. How large is "large"? Since only small amounts of this material can kill thousands of people, it doesn't matter how "large" it was. And this is also an admission that Sadam did possess these weapons, and the only question is in what quantities. The lefties argue that we sold WMDs to SH. Then they say that he didn't have any. It's so confusing. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usmcrigger 0 #9 January 23, 2004 Goose I ask you if the cops raid a house where they have probable cause to believe there are drugs, but find none and instead find neglected and abused children should they do nothing or protect the children. I see Iraq as the same situation. Yes, GWB may have had bad intel about WMD, but in the end what we have accomplished over there is still the right thing to do. I will be sure, always SEMPER FI Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #10 January 23, 2004 It's not that hard to follow.... We sold him WMD in the 80's. We invaded in the 90's. We demanded he get rid of them and sent in UN inspectors. He got rid of the WMD. We claimed he still had them and invaded again. What's so confusing about that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #11 January 23, 2004 Quotebut in the end what we have accomplished over there is still the right thing to do. Right thing to do for whom? In what way? For these guys? http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/. They're all dead. There's small news clips about them every day. What about these guys? http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/gallery.htm. They don't make the news, they're only missing limbs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #12 January 23, 2004 He got rid of the WMD. What did he do, flush them down the toilet? never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #13 January 23, 2004 We'd know the answer to that if the UN wasn't pulled out because of imminent invasion. They were in the process of gathering info about the status of the WMD which no longer exist as stated by the guy in charge of finding them now. They could have sold them to Syria, for all we know. But we'll never find out now. The inspectors may have been able to come up with something, but we'll never know because GWB had to go off half-cocked, literally. With not enough troops to do the job and with no plan in place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BBKid 0 #14 January 23, 2004 QuoteHe got rid of the WMD. What did he do, flush them down the toilet? It's well known that the UN inspectors were observing and assisting in their destruction. Although the Iraqi people are/will be/won't be better off without Saddam, there's the small matter of breaking international law (the bit about removing foreign heads of state by force when not in time of war). But then again, breaking international law only matters when it's the people who talk funny who do it. I'm desperately hoping Blair has to resign over all the shit he's dropped my country into, that way we might get a leader who doesn't bend over for Bush. Nick --------------------------- "I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #15 January 23, 2004 Quotethat way we might get a leader who doesn't bend over for Bush. Oh...he's not bending over for Bush. They're both bending over for a gang bang from the Wolfowitz cabal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #16 January 23, 2004 Quotehe complied with resolutions allowing people to search When? Sure he let inspectors in to his country...however QuoteUNSCR 687 - 3 April 1991 Ceasefire agreement at the end of the Gulf War: Resolution 687 created a UN observer force to monitor the demilitarised zone. The resolution also called for the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of: All chemical and biological weapons, and all stocks of agents and components All research, development, support and manufacturing facilities for ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150km and related repair and production facilities. UNSCR 1137 - 12 November 1997 Iraqi travel restrictions outlined: This measure condemned continuing violations of earlier resolutions by Iraq, and again demanded that Baghdad comply with the Unscom inspectors. UNSCR 1284 - 17 December 1999 Unmovic established: The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic) was created to replace Unscom. Iraq was ordered to allow Unmovic teams immediate and unconditional access to any weapons sites and facilities. The resolution also recognised the importance of a comprehensive approach to enforcing Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2246037.stm You will find that all the resolutions quoted above were not complied with here http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.htmlwww.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BBKid 0 #17 January 23, 2004 QuoteQuotethat way we might get a leader who doesn't bend over for Bush. Oh...he's not bending over for Bush. They're both bending over for a gang bang from the Wolfowitz cabal. [blair voice]Oh............yes.............I love it..........we must...............contine with this policy................[/blair voice] Nick --------------------------- "I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #18 January 23, 2004 QuoteIt's well known that the UN inspectors were observing and assisting in their destruction. I've never heard that...can you please provide a link so I may be enlightened.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usmcrigger 0 #19 January 23, 2004 Hey it upsets me too. They are my brothers and sisters in arms. I hate that they had to give their life and limbs to this cause, but spend a day with a large group of these men and women and you will find that the majority of us truly belive in what we are doing over there. Of course you will only see on the liberal media the few that they hunt down that will critize our mission and bitch about doing their job. I truly believe that our cause is a noble one. I also believe that our president went about presenting it to the public in the wrong way. He should have come straight out and said that we are going to end a tyrannical leaders reign of terror and free a suppressed nation of people. All you hear on TV is about the Iraqi's that are still shooting, not the majority of people who are greatly appreciative of what we are doing. Death and Tradgedy make for better stories than happiness. I wish we could have done all this without a single death, but that is not reality. Reality is this is war death is unavoidable, is it fair to their families, no, but this is our chosen profession we know what we are getting into. Semper Fi I will be sure, always SEMPER FI Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdD 1 #20 January 23, 2004 The resolutions weren't complied with? Hmmm, remember when the UN World Court told the US to get the hell out of Nicaragua in 1986 and it didn't? Guess there should have been a unilateral intervention in that case too then. The whole point of going outside the UN was that Iraq supposedly was bristling with WMD's and a pre emptive strike was ok because Iraq posed a direct threat to US national security. Now it's up to congress.Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #21 January 24, 2004 QuoteWorld Court Rules on State-Sanctioned Violence: Nicaragua vs. USA The World Court, without a working definition, cannot interpret terrorism per se, but it has ruled on the use of force by states against other states. In the case of Nicaragua v. United States of America (1986 I.C.J. 1 (June 27, 1986), by 12 votes to three, the court decided U.S. training, arming, equipping, and financing the contra forces and laying mines in the territorial waters of Nicaragua was a breach of its obligation "not to intervene in the affairs of another state" and "not to use force against another state." Nicaragua’s recourse after objection to the ruling was a UN Security Council resolution stating that "all countries should abide by international law," but this was vetoed by Washington. Nicaragua took no violent retaliation and it would have been impossible (and maybe suicidal) to push for a Security Council resolution authorizing force under the "self-defense" clause of Article 51. http://www.afsc.org/central/ia/fa0104.htm QuoteGuess there should have been a unilateral intervention in that case too then. I never said it was ok for the U.S. to invade. Please don't put words in my mouth or on my post. I was simply replying to someone's statement that SH complied with UN resolutions.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BBKid 0 #22 January 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt's well known that the UN inspectors were observing and assisting in their destruction. I've never heard that...can you please provide a link so I may be enlightened. Sorry, should have said "before they were kicked out in 1998". My bad. I know I really should qualify it with a link, but I'm far to tired to bother, it's after midnight here, and I have the BPA AGM tomorrow. Hell, even if I did post a link someone else would find one refuting it, then I'd find another etc. etc. Some of these threads turn out to be essentially pointless because each person posting knows what they think, and beleives they're more well-informed than the person taking a contrary position. But someone'll dispute that. I get why lots of people want to kill Americans, and I get why American want to kill a lot of other people. Both sides are right, both sides are wrong. It's down to a lack of understanding, and a lack of willingness to understand, on both sides (and I include myself amongst the ignorami). But that's my opinion. Nick --------------------------- "I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #23 January 24, 2004 I took a look and couldn't find anything. I also couldn't find anything involving the UN arms inspectors from 1991-1998. Perhaps someone else can take a look?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BBKid 0 #24 January 24, 2004 Just a quickie, it's probably crap, but here's something. I just looked to satisfy myself, really. http://www.nti.org/e_research/e1_iraq_1.html Nick --------------------------- "I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #25 January 24, 2004 That's better than what I found. Not saying it didn't happen. I just want to know more about what the UN inspectors did (as well as what SH did to hinder them) before they were kicked out of Iraq. The problem I have is why was it necessary for SH to kick em out of Iraq? Did SH just throw em a bone trying to satisfy the UN only to kick them out when they continued to sniff around? Its difficult for me to believe when SH says he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction when he consistently was evasive and uncooperative with UN inspectors. Do you honestly believe he didn't have WMDs proof or no proof?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
