Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (61035)	12/11/2002 5:28:52 AM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 281500

The inspectors are not supposed to be detectives ferreting out illicit weapons. That is the fundamental problem. Iraq was supposed to disclose, as a condition of the ceasefire, all its weapons and dual-use programs and facilities, which the inspectors would observe being destroyed and confirm Iraqi compliance. Problem is - Iraq has consistently and systematically sought to mislead, mischaracterize, and downright lie about its weapons. So you have the situation where Iraq has presented not one, but several "Final Declarations" like the one this past weekend. In fact, the "Final Declaration" contains nothing but material contained in prior declarations WHICH WERE SHOWN REPEATEDLY TO BE FALSE. I find it an exercise in incredible stupidity that anyone can say "hey, how do we know they're lying" when the Declaration says the Iraqi State ended all weapons programs and destroyed all materials after the Gulf War when Iraq has been caught again and again in the past decade with documentation, materials, and programs which outright contradict that. It is as if 1991-1998 NEVER HAPPENED. We are all now in the Twilight Zone. Derek

To: zonder who wrote (61035)	12/11/2002 7:44:32 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 281500

I remember reading somewhere about that guy's credibility, There are other defectors who have told similar stories about Saddam. Hamza mentioned one of them - Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son in law. I know all Iraqi defectors have been charged with lying by some elements of the anti-war crowd. That doesn't make it true. Also I posted info from the US State Dept website which cited a report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies - an independent research organization. There is a lot of material out there on this subject - Iraqwatch for example. but anyway, the point is that if there was real proof, the UN would not need inspectors. Or the inspectors would have something concrete by now. You seem to be saying that proof and evidence are two different things. Fine but that's no reason to ignore evidence. I think there are plenty of things we can not prove but we have good reason to believe to be true. You would agree I think that there is no way inspections would even be taking place now if Bush hadn't started preparing for war, wouldn't you? As it is, for the time being, it is all heresay. And no amount of bolding is changing that. I used bolding to set out the material I was copying from elsewhere as I was also using italics for identifying your words.

To: zonder who wrote (61035)	12/11/2002 8:15:09 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I was reading that Australia is about to put a major dent in the Internet by allowing libel suits for material on Servers in New Jersey. Now they are going to go after Gansta Rap, et al. Daily Brickbat Absurd news bites, served fresh every day. By Charles Oliver Buy a Record, Go to Jail (12/11) Australia is considering a bill that would make it illegal for anyone under 18 to buy CDs that contain strong language or themes such as violence, drug use, murder, and suicide. Australia currently rates CDs for content but doesn't restrict their sale. Marilyn Manson, Missy Elliott, Nick Cave, Oasis, and Jennifer Lopez are among the artists whose work now carries a warning sticker and might soon be banned for minors.

To: zonder who wrote (61035)	12/11/2002 6:52:43 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I remember reading somewhere about that guy's credibility, but anyway, the point is that if there was real proof, the UN would not need inspectors. No Zonder... they would need investigators, not inspectors.. The inspectors were merely for the purpose of insuring that Saddam had accounted for and destroyed all of those WMDs he claimed that he didn't have.. Not to find them.. That's like a probation court that has enjoined a Felon having any contraband materials being required to search the offender's property after he's ALREADY been caught with this material before.. It's not the probation officer's job to look for them. It's his job to ensure that the offender has complied with the court's judgement, and failing that, pressing forward with prosecuting them for violating probation. Why you, or anyone else, seem to be willing to cut Saddam slack over this issue is simply amazing to me. It's like he was never caught red-handed defying the UNSC resolutions for 5 years, hiding THOUSANDS OF TONNES of prohibited WMD weapons and materials, many of which REMAIN unaccounted for... And now Saddam is trying to tell us "we destroyed that material, and after we did so, we saw no reason to keep the documentation"... And now their lead biological guru, a female, now claims she's nothing more than a housewife... No offense Zonder... But Saddam is a brute, a liar, a torturer, and a megalo-maniac who seeks to unite the entire Arab region under his despotic rule. No one denies that he is all of these... So when you question the credibility of one of his defectors, who risked his life to provide us the information that led to our being able to find Saddam's hidden WMDs, it borders on incredulity. We shouldn't have to guess whether or not Saddam has fully accounted for his materials... And if we catch him red-handed again, we need to be FAR more forceful that we were in 1995, when those revelations should have been sufficient to evoke a UN military response for his overthrow. Hawk