The Bush Administration has stated over and over again that Iraq is NOT complying, but are not really clear as to what they are not complying on.

So far Iraq is:

1. Allowing 200 weapon inspectors full access to everywhere.
2. Allowing the use of helicopters and U2 spyplanes.
3. Destroying the Al Samoud 2 missles that went an extra 15 miles ( 108 total miles ). Not a WMD btw.
4. Showing exacavation sites where they claim they destroyed the weapons long ago.
5. Allowing private interviews to some of the scientists. Some won't because they can't have tape recorder during the interview.
6. Had South African representatives come to their country to instruct them further in complying. So far South has stated "Iraq is doing all they can to comply." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79766,00.html

So I'm asking you all what else must they do to comply?

The Bush Administration wants confession and nothing else, and Bush will not give ANY decent information to the UN weapon inspectors to find the evidence needed for one. As a matter of fact UN weapon inspectors are calling US intelligence "A wild goose chase" and "Garbage, Garbage, and more Garbage." Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/...ain537096.shtml

And Rumsfeld commented saying that Iraq needs to comply fully like South Africa did, yet South Africa is stating that Iraq is doing all they can. eh??

So you tell me: What would you consider full compliance?

To believe that SH is actually complying by doing the same thing he did last time would be naive of Pres. Bush. Compliance is nothing short of complete disarment.

CP

Ok, so how does Iraq PROVE they have disarmed? Come forth with weapons they say they don't have?

That's confession, not compliance. So what do you mean?

First of all, you have forgotten that Saddam handed over some documents that supposivly told UN inspectors where the missing VX gas & anthrax is but they still haven't found those & you forgot to mention the dozen or so empty chemical warheads that inspectors found that weren't declared

Secondly, to answer your question: Full compliance is total destruction of all weapons & to stop threatening to not disarm & to cooperate with inspectors & if scientists don't like tape recorders, too bad.

What I mean is I want is, I want to hear the UN say that they currently control all Iraqi WMD, meaning Iraq gives them up.

CP

"What I mean is I want is, I want to hear the UN say that they currently control all Iraqi WMD, meaning Iraq gives them up."

Yeah I tend to agree with you on that. If the UN says Iraq is complying then that'll be good enough for me. Blix just stated a few days ago that they are seeing "real efforts of compliance" so I hope it continues.

According to UN1441, Iraq must provide proof (video, documents, residue, etc..) of the destruction of all WMD's.

It has not yet done so............

The reason I am skeptical is that he's done this before.

CP

Hmmm...



Problem #1, but not the biggest...



And...



That's not all. A Link to some of the rest included below. Any true disarmament must include the verified destruction of these weapons.

Iraq's 'unaccounted for' weapons



*edited to fix broken quotes.

Thanks for the info: I've been looking for a list.


*edited to clean up quotes

What missiles? oh...THOSE missiles. Aren't those the ones SH said he didn't have? I wonder how he can destroy something that he said doesn't exist. heh

And sure they can cooperate now. They've had a couple months of being UNcooperative to hide everything they have. So now they can let inspectors roam around until their hearts content, knowing the cheese is hidden from the mice.

--cheers

This is the 2nd time I've heard someone post stating the Al Samoud 2 missles were not in the 13,000 page document presented to the UN, yet I cannot find ANY news article stating that. Can you send me a link to back your statement?
The first poster never responded.

Besides these missles are not weapons of mass destruction. They are merely defense missles that go a little further than allowed ONLY if the guidance system is not installed. Or so I've read.

Iraq didn't want to destroy them because they felt they were not in violation, but they'd rather destroy some missles than get attacked.

[quote=Rickmanx,Mar 5 2003, 05:06 AM] [/QUOTE]
This is the 2nd time I've heard someone post stating the Al Samoud 2 missles were not in the 13,000 page document presented to the UN, yet I cannot find ANY news article stating that. Can you send me a link to back your statement?
The first poster never responded.
[/quote]
Are you referring to the Iraq dossier that the United States Government censored 8,000 pages of while making xerox copies of it before handing them over to the U.N.? Practically two-thirds of their weapons report was removed by the U.S. for the purpose of controlling information so that Bush can have his war.

As far as compliance goes, well, I think a lesson we learned about World War II is that you can't appease a dictator.
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - so long as I'm the dictator." -George W. Bush, Dec. 19, 2000

I do not think that it is possible for Iraq to comply to the satisfaction of the US, simply because the decision to invade has already been made.

I have a friend in the RAF and a friend in GCHQ in the West of England, and both tell me that the final decision to go to war was made over 6 months ago.

When Bush and Blair talk about compliance it really has very little to do with what Iraq does or doesn't do, but is really just another part of their elaborate con designed to make their respective elctorates believe that war is a strategic necessity and a moral requirement.

If I were Saddam Hussein, I would be stock-piling as many weapons as I possibly could, because this war is coming regardless of what i do.

According to this site, the decision to go to war with Iraq may have been made several years ago!

Doesn't matter. WMD aren't the only type of weapon Iraq is not supposed to posses.

I would like to see some evidence of that...



This is kind of simplistic, isn't it? No decision is final until it is put into action. The US didn't even start massing in the Middle East 6 months ago.

I do agree that there is not much Saddam can do at this point, other than turn over his WMDs...which, of course, is almost out of the question at this point.

If you were Saddam, how would you go about stockpiling weapons? At this point, he is surrounded and well-watched. The time for stockpiling is over. The time to run for cover is at hand.

No. Iraq was allowed to have those missiles but since they went beyond the limit, they had to destroy them.

I think the only thing that would show that Iraq has fully complied, is a full confession by Saddam:

"To the People of The United States of America, I have come before you to confess. It was me, and me alone that did indeed, tear tags off of mattresses with wanton abandon".

Anything short of that, and that whole region is toast.

It seems to me that the conditions for compliance are laid out quite clearly in the Security Council resolutions. No one has indicated they expect more...

Please try and be constructive in your posts.

Sheesh, how about just a little sense of humor?

If you looked just a little deeper, maybe you could see my meaning (which probably isn't constructive anyway).

It doesn't matter what Saddam does. Bush will find a reason to invade and occupy Iraq regardless of what he does. Including tearing the tags off mattress pads.

Are you people always this uptight? Just curious...

Evidence?

Evidence?

1) Saddam has no navy or air force that is a threat.
2) Saddam has an elite army that surrenders to CNN news crews.
3) Saddam has no long range weapons delivery systems.
4) Chemical and biological weapons have a very short shelf life. He would need significant production facilities to keep them up. The UN inspectors are 0 fer 600 and some - even with intelligence from the CIA.
5) No other country in that region is afraid of Iraq.
6) Out of the hundreds of terrorists attacks thwarted since 9/11, none have been Iraqi.
7) Iraq has no real history or trend of supporting international terrorism. Locally, he's brutal.
8) In the 12 years when nobody was looking, Iraq never supplied WMD to terrorists groups.
9) Iraq has not prevented the inspectors from having unfettered access to any part of their country.
10) Hans Blix is encouraged that Saddam is disarming.
11) Iraq is destroying weapons that are technically illegal (depending on how they are armed), but necessary for him to defend himself from the other hostile threats in the region (Iranians, Kurds, etc)
11) A week ago, Iraq needed to disarm. This week, we need regime change.

Gee...maybe you're right. Besides that, I got nothing...

Amlord



Have a look here.

Turnea



"-we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values"

This is from a 1997 declaration signed by many of the current US administration.

Points 1-3,5: Irrelevent to the present discussion of WMD proliferation.

Point 4: Your info of weapons shelf lives?

Points 6,7,8: It is pointless to assume what Saddam will or will not do with WMD, the international community has resolved (correctly in my opinion) to not give him the option.

Point 9: Only after threats of regime change, obviously the behavior of an country with no WMD to hide .

Point 10: As of this week, 12 years after being ordered to. We have not yet heard Blix's report on the new info, perhaps it includes the long-awaited disclosure of missing chemical and biological weapons(see the first page of this thread) perhaps not. We'll see...

Point 11: Only those the have been caught with, I though the resolutions called for proactive compliance...

Point 12: The US and UK in particular has been calling for disarmament for twelve years and today is not the first time regime change was "suggested". Remember Desert Fox?

Tell me again how your points are evidence of Bush's unalterable desire to attack Iraq?

Not true: Iraqi Missile Range


Some in Israel, Jordan, Turkey, & Iran would tell you otherwise



Is Israel included in the local part? I mean he's launched scuds at them during the Gulf War. That's international to me



Are you sure? How did Osama get those chemicals then:
Osama tests chemicals on dogs



Iraq Timeline

You consider 400 miles "long range"? In any case, this is from your source:



We couldn't drag Turkey into this fight kicking and screaming even with an offer of $92 billion dollars over 5 years. Yeah, they're really scared.

Launching scuds (as wrong as it was) during a war is hardly "terrorism".

I don't know where Osama's dog (can I name him Fido? It appears your source has no evidence to back those claims up, so I'd like to make up some stuff too) got gassed, but what does that have to do with Iraq? Russia, China, Korea, and Iran are the key suppliers of WMD technology. Why not eliminate the known suppliers before getting to the guy that isn't even on the CIA's radar screen (in terms of being a supplier)?

As far as the rest, I'm talking post resolution 1441.

This is the WORST kind of sourcing possible. Nowhere in that article is Iraq mentioned, or even alluded to. Without any factual connection this is worthless.

Gosh, it was only about 2 months ago.

America tore out 8000 pages of Iraq dossier
http://www.sundayherald.com/30195

The Case of the Missing Information about Iraq’s Weapons
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/media_om...ons_jan03.shtml

URGENT - Iraq WMD Report Censored
http://www.russfound.org/UNSecCouncil.htm

UN studies Iraq arms dossier
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2585779.stm

America Tore Out 8000 Pages of Iraq Dossier
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1222-02.htm

The only nations that have a complete 12,000 page Iraq weapons dossier is the U.S., China, Russia, Britian, and France. The other 10 members of the council receive a wimpy down sized version of the report because they are non-permanent members. None the less, it was the U.S. that decided what to be censored so that the fewest eyes can see it in full. This creates a disadvantage for other countries on the Security Council to make a fair judgment for the war on Iraq. France has the full copy, and it doesn't seem to persuade them much for war. I still see it as a way for Bush to manipulate the United Nations to make his case for war by making demands for Iraq and then controling the information.

It doesn't have to. It's obvious where he got the chemicals

If it's so obvious, then by all means prove it, or at least make use of evidence that goes some way towards substantiating your claim.

OK, I am not sure what possible good it could do the US to pare down the report. If a member nation wants a copy, why not ask Iraq directly for one?

You also said that 5 member nations : US, UK, China, France and Russia have full copies....HMMM, those are the permanent members. The one with the resources to analyze a huge document like that...If a country wants a full copy, why not ask France for its copy? They are anti-war, I am sure they would comply.

Also, if the US pared out vital (read : exculpatory) evidence, wouldn't France point it out? France: Hey, it says right here we destroyed all of our Anthrax stores on such and such a date via such and such a method. Nothing of the sort is coming out.

People jump to the conclusion that just because the full version of a report isnt't freely given out, that the US is hding all the good stuff.



This is simply the way the game is played. You don't seriously think that every UN nation has the best intentions at heart, do you?

But of course, for some, the US can do no right...

Have you ever read the resolutions that outline what compliance is?

Compliance is not Iraqi officials standing idly and giggling as UN inspectors wander around in a futile game of hide and seek.

It is Iraq's duty to show the inspectors the hundreds of tons of chemical and biological agents and the delivery munitions numbering in the tens of thousands, reported in 1999 to be in Iraq's possession.

There are only two possibilities regarding Iraq's compliance.

1) Iraq is hiding the;

"360 tons of chemical weapons (including 1.5 tons of VX Nerve Gas); 3000 tons of precursor chemicals, 300 tons of which are unique to the production of VX; 30,000 special munitions for chemical and biological weapons delivery and growth media for production of biological weapons - enough to make more than three times the 8,500 liters of anthrax spores Iraq already admits to having manufactured. -- UNSCOM, Reports to the Security Council, 25 January 1999

and is thus in material breach of UN Resolution 1441.

OR

2) Iraq has "fully"complied with UN Resolution 1441, and has in fact, disarmed and destroyed all those tons of chemical and biological weapons and the tens of thousands of delivery ordinance . . . and is, for some mysterious reason, concealing and suppressing the evidence of that compliance from the UN inspectors.

Which possibility do you think it is?

Here are some facts that may help your decision making process.

Resolution 1441 was intended to be Iraq's "last chance" to comply with the international community's repeated demand to divest itself of chemical and biological weapons and their delivery systems.

It was written under the authority of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. This is important for this discussion; it is the chapter that authorizes the Security Council to,

. . . take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

UN Resolution 1441 in part states;

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, . . .

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;

11. 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;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Perhaps when the Security Council warned Iraq it would "face serious consequences," it meant that we will just hold our breath until Iraq compiles. . .

I tend to doubt that.

Resolution 1441 states in clause 4 above that Iraq's failure to, "cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations. . ."

"FURTHER MATERIAL BREACH" The determination of Iraq's status of compliance before 1441 was already decided. There is no need for you or anyone to question now the status of Iraq's "compliance" now.

Iraq was generously given a last chance to redeem itself with the "extra time" granted by 1441. . .

It failed to do that.

Remember, the 1991 Gulf War was ended with a cease fire dependant upon Iraq fufiling certain demands; Saddam agreed and began making his empty promises to disarm. Hostilities are not permanently ended, they are just suspended.

Another issuance by the UNSC of a "last chance, we really mean it, we're gonna put you on double secret probation with extra serious consequences" resolution is not necessary, nor is it proper.

The demand for such is an affront to decency and the rule of law.

Along with all that Mike has provided:



The Kuwaitis haveyet to see it's nationals returned

I would consider Iraq in compliance when it has followed through on its agreements as a result of the Gulf War. However, there is more room for diplomacy on this matter. We can work with the international community to lay out a clear timeline that must be met in regards to these demands.

A do it all now or face the consequences approach is made by countries that are trying to go to war.

Iraq is not in compliance. The United States is justified in waging war against Iraq tomorrow. But to do so would still be the wrong thing.

Full compliance in my opinion would be Iraq totally dismantling its WMD programs, as well as surrendering all current stockpiles to the U.N. In short, full compliance would be Iraq obeying the terms put in place by 1441.

Iraq has not done this. All Iraq has done is surrender a few token weapons that are only the tip of the iceberg, in an attempt to woo the internation community and stave off an American/British invasion. That is not compliance.

A document that the US and Britian was using that proves Iraq is building nuclear capabilty by buying quantities of uranium has been deemed a fake by the UN Weapon Inspectors. And in thursday nights press conference Bush kept linking Saddam to 9/11, although NPR the same night had US Officials answering questions and flat out stating they have no solid evidence linking them.

So that's now 2 lies or fabrications. Wonder how many more might be out there?

Makes you really start to wonder when Bush says "US intelligence indicates..."

True, but I think it has been shown in this thread, we don't need US intelligence to know that Iraq isn't complying with the UN.

They have been directed not to find any evidence of Iraq's nuclear program and to dismiss and disavow any third party evidence stating such a program exists.

Hans Blix is covering his [backside]. From 1981 to 1997, Blix headed the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. body responsible for inspecting nuclear sites around the world - including Iraq's - to make sure they are not cranking out atomic bombs. He continuously rated Iraq's cooperation as "exemplary."

Now of course, he is head of the present weapons inspectors. He was not the first choice. The United States backed Rolf Ekeus, the highly effective leader of the U.N. Special Commission that inspected Iraq in the 1990s. But Iraq's champions in the U.N. Security Council, Russia and France, vetoed Mr. Ekeus as too aggressive. They put up Mr. Blix instead. After ineffectual opposition from the Clinton administration, Mr. Blix took over the present U.N. inspection organization (called UNMOVIC) in January 2000.

Now Blix now faces a dilemma. The only way he can save face is if Saddam Hussein decides to fess up and admit what he has; then inspections could work. They are, after all, designed to only monitor and verify disarmament, not produce it.

Unfortunately, if Saddam doesn't fess up, Blix has a losing hand and is seen as the fool. Just yesterday he delivered a mixed report, offering what he hopes is enough evidence of Iraq's compliance to keep the "inspections" going into the summer. He is walking a tightrope.

If he is in any way aggressive and finally proves Saddam is lying and in complete breach, it will be just what GWBush is waiting for to launch the Tomahawks.

Mr. Blix will then be the chump in the play - the first U.N. bureaucrat to hand the world a war.

The prospect of war may be feared and disdained by many, many people but none for more selfish reasons than Hans Blix.

The evidence uncovered after the war will expose him for the fraud and enabler that he is.

Giving his proclamations any weight is foolish.

Given all that, please remember, your bleating that the "US hasn't given the world evidence" only helps Blix's cover-up.

First of all, it is Saddam's job to offer the evidence of all his WMD programs. Anything short of that is a material breach of 1441 and every other resolution. It's Blix's job, not the USA's to make sure that happens.

The info that has been offered by the USA has been nothing more than test balloons. This undertaking by Bush operates on many different levels and disgracing the UN is a major one.

Now this i did not know. Too Agressive?? Isn't that the point of Weapons Inspectors? To be aggressive in their job to get it done? France, Russia & Germany hiding something so big they don't want it revealed by an aggressive inspector?



Good luck at that happening. Saddam would rather die than give up his prized possessions


And Mike, just a little note...refrain from swearing...it'll get you in big trouble here

jon bon is exactly correct. Bush wanted to go to war with iraq since his inaguration, and 9/11 provided him with the cover. The decision was made before bush went before the UN in sept. of 02. That was a token act to try to win some resemblence of public support for this military action. They have tried to link saddam to al-queda to no avail. Sometimes I can't believe these are the people that are running my country, they seem more like a high school debate team or high school mock trial participants.

I believe saddam has to be disarmed, but not how bush is stumbling through it. What they should have done is work with the French, Germans, Russians and the rest of the industrialized world instead of spouting insults and name calling. Bush's cowboy rhetoric is going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars in military expenditures, not to mention the probable lost trade with many of the nations so bitterly opposed to us. Is it november 2004 yet???

That the present UNMOVIC inspectors under Hans Blix are less aggressive is an unavoidable outcome from the changes made in the make-up of the inspection process. Not only was Rolf Ekeus vetoed, the entire system under which he had his success, was scrapped by the UN in 2000.

Here is an excerpt from an article written by Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control staffers, dated Oct., 2002. It also speaks about the present system's handling of intelligence and why perhaps, the US intelligence has been so "lacking."

Iraq: The Snare of Inspections

"Almost three years ago, a new UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) replaced the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM). The latter, which for seven years had run the inspection effort in Iraq, was a special-purpose enterprise operated by officials on loan from national governments. The former, which has yet to take the field, is modeled on the UN’s notoriously inefficient bureaucracy.

This change has a number of serious and debilitating implications. Among other things, UN inspectors are no longer set up to make effective use of intelligence information—an essential tool for determining whether Iraq is telling the truth. In the 1990’s, when U.S. intelligence officials agreed to supply secret information to the UN inspectors, they did so only after becoming confident that the inspectors were themselves willing and able to use the information thereby received to uncover forbidden Iraqi weapon efforts. The information went only to inspectors who were individually trusted to protect it; these inspectors obtained the information on a privileged basis, and could be counted on to use it aggressively.

At UNMOVIC, which is split into a number of separate divisions, no inspector will be allowed to receive intelligence information on a privileged basis, and any and all information is liable to be shared. Not only does this make it more difficult to prevent information from leaking, thus undermining the confidence of governments thinking of supplying it, but no one can be sure that particular pieces of information will be acted upon. Unless and until national governments become convinced otherwise, not much of significant value is likely to be provided—an especially grave problem today when solid intelligence on Iraq has become scarcer and therefore more valuable.

Other considerations are relevant here. The American, British, and Israeli officials who in the past provided information to UNSCOM benefited from the fact that their relationship with the commission was a "loop." Evidence uncovered by UNSCOM inspectors flowed back to those nations’ intelligence agencies for analysis, and this analysis produced new leads for UNSCOM in return. UNMOVIC, however, has announced that there will be no loop. Information will flow only in, not out. This will be a crippling handicap. Even if, for example, an Iraqi defector should turn up and tell UNMOVIC to look in a certain building, the agency will need a means of evaluating his reliability before it decides to act. Without a loop, it cannot ask the intelligence service of a national government to vet what it has learned. It will have to rely on its own resources, and if these are insufficient to prompt action, an important opportunity may thereby be lost.

UNMOVIC’s prohibition on dialogue apparently extends even to analysis. The agency recently refused an offer by a supporting Western government to help evaluate information UNMOVIC already had on hand. By thus depriving itself of access to friendly national governments,, UNMOVIC has chosen ignorance over knowledge and removed one of the greatest incentives for providing intelligence information in the first place. And without a return flow of information, the governments concerned can hardly place confidence in UNMOVIC’s inspection reports, especially if they reflect favorably on Iraq’s behavior.

Nor is that all. Unlike their predecessors at UNSCOM, UNMOVIC’s inspectors have been required to sever all links with their national governments and to become UN employees. Although UNMOVIC does train its inspectors in security precautions, it has no process for security clearance per se—without which there is no way to assess an inspector’s personal reliability, to guarantee that he is not an intelligence agent, or to punish him if he reveals secret information. Even if UNMOVIC had not already moved to sever the loop of reciprocal relations, this lack of security would probably be enough by itself to inhibit most national governments from providing the agency with sensitive equipment or techniques of analysis.

So much for internal considerations. On the ground, in Iraq itself, UNMOVIC would soon run up against obstacles at least as formidable as those with which UNSCOM had to cope, and which UNMOVIC is far less equipped to handle.

UNSCOM conducted some 260 inspections in Iraq over its seven years there. A fair number of these were surprise visits with no advance notice, an enterprise at which unscom had become particularly adept. Even so, Iraq’s intelligence operatives defeated it more often than not: only about a halfdozen of the surprise inspections actually succeeded. Saddam Hussein’s agents were active in hotel rooms in both New York and Baghdad as well as at the UN building in New York. It was a rare inspection when the Iraqis did not know what the inspectors were looking for before they arrived at the site to be searched.<
Compounding the advantage held by Iraq in this regard is the success it has achieved, at considerable expense, in making its secret weapon efforts mobile."

That's for sure! And Blix will keep the reports on Iraq's "compliance" coming; he'll word them just like the last one, ambiguous enough to keep the "world" demanding inspections continue.



I had to re-read my post 4 times to see it. . . That word is a swear word here? Whatever, I edited my post to "clean" it up.

Here's another interesting tidbit about Saddam's Son-In-Law that I did not know. We've all heard that he defected from Iraq in 1995, and that he was a "goldmine" of information. We also heard that he returned later and was executed for treason.

But did you know this?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/876572.asp

How do we know he wasn't a "plant", gave false evidence and then went back to Iraq where he was "killed".

Just a theory, but I wouldn't trust the word (whether he said what I wanted/expected him to or not) of someone who shows up, tells me a bunch of "top secret" stuff, then disappears and is killed.

Tells me that SH has been re-arming if he did destroy anytthing in the first place.

What it tells me is when he defected he announced that Iraq's WMDs were destroyed, or at least all of the ones he knew of.

I'm amazed how afraid so many people are of a country that has done NOTHING to us. We ( meaning USA ), on the other hand, have been bombing them for over 10 years.

Plus what about this article?

http://electroniciraq.net/news/272.shtml

What does this one tell you?

Shame Iraq has not provided the documentation to back up this claim (this was in the article you know) as they were told to do so twelve years ago. Obviously the actions of a country with no WMD


After the massacrers that followed in the north and south and consequent resolutions ordering Iraq to end such activities... the No-Fly zones (where the bombings occur) may not be such a bad idea. To the issue of being afraid of Iraq, the world community has already admitted that the threat posed to international security by Iraq's WMD programs are too great to allow to go unanswered. Do you not care whether Iraq is disarmed or not?

That was his first dumb move: going back home

Anyways, yeah i did know about this stuff

I do want Saddam disarmed.. if he even has anything to disarm. So far the burden of proof has been put on the accusee' not the accuser, and the accuser has brought fake documents and satellite photos of so-called chemical plants that turn out to be nothing.

It's hard to trust the accuser when he brings NO credible information to prove that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. I'm not talking about UN violations or resolutions. I'm talking about how this whole thing started:

Bush accused Saddam of hiding Weapons of Mass destruction, and then did NOTHING to prove his case. To the UN or the world.

Unless, of course, you want to talk about Powell's evidence that has all been shot down by multiple sources.

If Saddam really did have secret bunkers and the US knows where they are TELL SOMEONE! Hell, tell the weapon inspectors, they'll go in.. bingo! Case is Proven. War is justified.

But now the American people are so misinformed that they believe Saddam is linked to 9/11 ( latest poll indicates ) and Bush did a hell of a job shoveling a major amount of *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** supporting that.

I really would love to believe Saddam and Al Quida were allied, but I have not seen one iota of proof stating that!

And it really doesn't make any sense. If the weapon inspectors are getting progress ( which they are: 53 SA2's have been destoyed, a UAV has been destroyed ( damn thing was put together with balsa wood and duct tape! ), 10 private interviews have taken place, and much more ( Here's the UNMOVIC's daily update to see for yourself : http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/index.htm ) then why not continue with the inspections?

Unless the US and UK has POSTIVE proof that Saddam is hiding deadly weapons and can prove their case I'll never suppot this war. I don't see it as even close to justified.

I mean what evidence are the American people running on?

1. Saddam and Bin laden are linked
So far NO proof has brought stating that and US officials admitted there is no proof (NPR All things considered )

2. Saddam has WMDs.
Again no solid evidence.

3. Saddam has not proven that his WMDs have been destroyed.
More and more evidence is coming forth daily to verify what Iraq has always claimed. YES there are still some unresolved issues, but answers are still coming and the UNMOVIC is doing their job. Plus UNMOVIC now has created a new list of disarmanent tasks. Why halt it now? Why not wait and see if the list is fullfilled in the "months" that Blix stated?

US can pull back their troops now, and can deploy again later if Blix reports Iraq won't comply.

I can't understand WHY America is so gung ho about wanting to attack without any evidence. Give me evidence and I'll say "get the sucka". Give me nothing but "not complying" statements ( Even though Blix admitted there is compliance now ) and I'd have to look for a different motive besides a threat to national security.