Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A Double-standard On WMDs  
User currently offlineBoeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2282 posts, RR: 1
Posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2084 times:

Something to ponder:

Why is it that when the UN inspectors needed more time in Iraq the US said "Sorry, enough time"? And yet now that the US can't find WMDs, they're saying they need more time to find them.







Free-thinking, left-leaning secularist
52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2044 times:

Given the UN inspectors were given 12 years, I think it'll be a long time yet before you can speak of double standards  Laugh out loud


I wish I were flying
User currently offlineBoeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2037 times:

12 years, yes, but just a few months of full-time, serious inspection opportunities.


Free-thinking, left-leaning secularist
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2028 times:

Boeing757/767:

Well, Bush said (over and over again) he did have evidence, so really it shouldn't take this long...



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2022 times:

You're forgetting that all pieces of evidence have been hauled to Syria, including the entire ABC weapons programmes. Those mobile labs are mobile for a reason. Yeah sure


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineMbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2019 times:

Hey! This is the United States of America. It's all about double standards.

I wonder how Americans would feel if a greater military power were to emerge and announce that the U.S. had to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction by a deadline or face a preemptive invasion?


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13608 posts, RR: 61
Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2011 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I wonder how Americans would feel if a greater military power were to emerge and announce that the U.S. had to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction by a deadline or face a preemptive invasion?

Well, all mankind would band together to fight along side the U.S. in such a case, as any such military power would be from another planet...  Big grin



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2006 times:

Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998, not the US. Blame him if the UN was shortchanged on time.

The truth is, whether you like it or not, the world is safer because of the US nuclear arsenal. While the US may be imperfect, it is a lot better than any alternative hegemon. Unlike past powers, we do not go fight wars of conquest despite the inane babbling from Europe and the American left these days.


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1990 times:

N79969:

"Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998, not the US. Blame him if the UN was shortchanged on time. "



"16 Dec 1998 The Special Commission withdraws its staff from Iraq."
(Source: http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronology.htm)


  1. Guess when Operation Desert Fox started?

  2. Guess which nation used their inspectors on the UNSCOM team to secretly plant monitoring devices for their own intelligence?

  3. Guess how long it took before this nation admitted it had indeed misused the UNSCOM weapon inspectors team for their own purposes, thereby undermining the whole UN Security Council and the Iraqi inspection process?




N79969, is it really that hard to get the right info? It only happened 5 years ago!



Answers:
1. 16 december 1998.
2. US
3. 2 days (8 January 1999, after it had been officialy denounced by Kofi Annan two days earlier).



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 3018 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1982 times:

Hate to make such a simple-minded point, but in the minds of some posters here, I wonder, if Saddam Hussein is not found, did he also not exist?






Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

Spare me your "right info" nonsense. Look at December 15 and the days before.... Quit selectively reading the facts to paint the distorted picture you want.

I am glad that someone was keeping an eye on the Iraqis since the UN is ready to roll-over to any dictator.

I am glad that our country is not led by people who cower at the prospect of dealing with people like Saddam and prefer debate endlessly in the style of Neville Chamberlain and put their faith in the words of people like Saddam Hussein.


User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1968 times:

Given the UN inspectors were given 12 years, I think it'll be a long time yet before you can speak of double standards

No no no, again untrue Jeroen.

You need MILITARY PRESENCE in the Gulf before you can put pressure on Saddam.

America had to show it's power in the Gulf first. Now that they finally did this, the inspectors only had a few weeks to do their job.


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

4holer:

"Hate to make such a simple-minded point, but in the minds of some posters here, I wonder, if Saddam Hussein is not found, did he also not exist?"

You said it yourself,... it is a simple-minded point!


N79969:

"Spare me your "right info" nonsense."

No, I already assumed you prefer to be lied to...

"Quit selectively reading the facts to paint the distorted picture you want. "

You're the one 'inventing' Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998 when it's simply not true! Don't blame me for your imagination!

"I am glad that someone was keeping an eye on the Iraqis since the UN is ready to roll-over to any dictator."

Apparently, they were able to disarm this dictator.

"I am glad that our country is not led by people who cower at the prospect of dealing with people like Saddam..."

You're completely right. We were SO AFRAID of Saddam...

"...and prefer debate endlessly in the style of Neville Chamberlain "

Remember that your country is also a permanent UN Security Council Member. Many countries have tried to find a solution at the Security Council over all these years, only to find the opposition of the US with its veto-power. If this has all taken too long for you, the US is also to blame in a great way.

"...and put their faith in the words of people like Saddam Hussein."

I would agree if indeed the UN Weapons Inspectors would have believed before this war started Saddam was a threat and did have those WMD's Bush has been scaring you about. Ask the parents of the dead US soldiers in Iraq if they still have faith in the words of Bush & Co.? After all, he send their children to fight a war over a cause that didn't exist!



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1928 times:

Schoenorama,

What do you think happened in 1998? The inspectors went back to Vienna for a coffee break? Saddam quit cooperating: i.e. inspectors, take a hike. He got rid of them.

You do selectively read. Read your own link and see what precipitated the departure of the UN.

From what I hear, I think the parents of fallen US soldiers are proud of their children, their country, and our President.

Implicit in your posts is that unless weapons are found they did not exist. Bad logic.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6452 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

What a stupid word twisting going on here. The facts are:

1. Iraq used WMD against Iran.

2. Iraq used WMD against its own people.

3. Iraq did not co-operate promptly and willingly with the UN inspectors in 1991. Not even in 1992 to 2003.

4. Thanks to the coalition forces Britain, Denmark, Poland and the USA there will not be WMDs in Iraq in the future.

That's the whole ten yards for me.

And the coalition was backed verbally by 40+ brave countries.

The discussion about how easy or difficult WMDs are to find, or how easy or difficult WMDs are to hide inside or outside the country, is fruitless.

The bottom line is that a somewhat better world has been created for all people who are uneasy having WMD capability in the hands of ruthless and brutal dictators. It is no more complicated than that.

As an extra bonus the latter includes the Iraqi people as well.

Kind regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1902 times:

Here we go again. Those of us who see this appalling two-faced game by the Bush Administration will never be convinced that the're telling the truth on this one.

The UN did not have 12 years of inspections, so Jwenting, you can stow that one good buddy. The UN didn't have the balls for 12 years to make their declarations stick, so they deserve a lot of the blame. But so does Bush, for this constant, daily pounding on the airwaves and in the print media that Saddam was capable of launching an massive WMD attack on his neighbors, when that is now obviously not the case.

We have lack of action from one quarter-the UN, and over-reaction from the other-the US, which has lead to one big fucked-up situation of war, occupation, and guerilla warfare is sure to drag on into next year's presidential election cycle.

Same old, same old.


User currently offlineB747forlife From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1896 times:

Actually 4-holer, that is not a simple minded post. It makes perfect sense and it blows a lot of the ideas that Bush lied out of the water. I mean, Saddam cannot be found, so therefore, under the liberal rhetoric here (the US) and the UK about fabricated evidence, etc. he never existed and was also fabricated.

Obviously, the WMD were not destroyed (if they had been I'm sure Saddam would have been able to prove it (what dictator would give up the chance to make a US president look like an absolute IDIOT)) and are just waiting to be found. We know they did exist because Saddam used them in the past multiple times. Therefore, because there is no proof of their destruction, and they did exist, Saddam must have had them.

-Nick


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1884 times:

N79969:

"You do selectively read. Read your own link and see what precipitated the departure of the UN. "

I do know what happened prior to 16 December 1998. But there's a BIG difference between being KICKED OUT by Saddam and leaving the country voluntarily.

"From what I hear, I think the parents of fallen US soldiers are proud of their children, their country, and our President."

Poor parents...

"Implicit in your posts is that unless weapons are found they did not exist. Bad logic"

How do you mean, implicit in my post? All I said to 4holer is that his remark (No Saddam Found = He Didn't Exist) was indeed simple-minded. Please do read my posts more carefully!

Prebennorholm:

"What a stupid word twisting going on here."

Stupid? I believe it all makes pretty good sense...

"3. Iraq did not co-operate promptly and willingly with the UN inspectors in 1991. Not even in 1992 to 2003."

True. Guess why Iraq didn't do so. If the UN Security Council would have been a completely independent body with consistent policies throughout the 12 years of inspections, an attack on Iraq would have been totally acceptable. But the UN Security Council has been anything but consistent in its policies and inspections over all these years, mainly, if not entirely, due to the fact that some countries, with a veto power, have used the sanctions to accomplish their own political interests. One country in particular, the US, stated they would not support (or would even veto) a resolution for the lifting of the sanctions even in the case Iraq complied with all resolutions.
Now guess why Saddam didn't cooperate with the UN during all these years. Because he knew that the sanctions wouldn't be lifted anyway and that some countries tried very hard, through the UN Security Council, to get him out of power.

"4. Thanks to the coalition forces Britain, Denmark, Poland and the USA there will not be WMDs in Iraq in the future."

Prior to this war, and according to UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and IAEA, there wasn't a threat comming from Iraq, as Bush and Blair (and Aznar, you forgot about him  Smile/happy/getting dizzy) repeated over and over again. And as things are now, 2 months after the Saddam Regime fell, the combined weapons inspectors' assessment of the situation in Iraq has already been proven more accurate than the assessment by the coalition forces, Spain included.

"And the coalition was backed verbally by 40+ brave countries."

And wasn't backed, both verbally as oficially, by the rest of the world, nor did the coalition have a specific UN Security Council Resolution. (Resolution 1441 can only be applied in case WMD's are actually found.)

"The discussion about how easy or difficult WMDs are to find, or how easy or difficult WMDs are to hide inside or outside the country, is fruitless."

Is it? Mind you, I might even agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that Bush, Blair and the other Hawks have made numerous statements saying they had evidence, they had documents, which all proved Iraq was an imminent threat to the US.

"The bottom line is that a somewhat better world has been created for all people who are uneasy having WMD capability in the hands of ruthless and brutal dictators. It is no more complicated than that."

It is A LOT more complicated than that.

"As an extra bonus the latter includes the Iraqi people as well."

Don't jump to conclusion too early, please. See what happened in Afghanistan and what is actually happening there NOW.

B747forlife:

"I mean, Saddam cannot be found, so therefore, under the liberal rhetoric here (the US) and the UK about fabricated evidence, etc. he never existed and was also fabricated."

Guess what Mr Keneth Adelman, Member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, told the Washington Post on April 10th?

"..with fear of Saddam almost gone, the United States should have the information on Iraq's WMD in the next five days."

Guess what he said on May 17 to the same newspaper?

"It was possible that Saddam's whole program of WMD was a gigantic hoax. Not a hoax perpetrated by the Bush administration, mind you, but by Saddam himself. Saddam may, said Adelman, have launched "a massive disinformation campaign to make the world think he was violating international norms, and he may not have been."

Mind you, this guy is on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee !!!

And you complain about 'liberal rhetoric'?

" Obviously, the WMD were not destroyed (if they had been I'm sure Saddam would have been able to prove it (what dictator would give up the chance to make a US president look like an absolute IDIOT))"

Don't you see that now, while there is still not a single trace about any WMD's and people are slowly starting to wonder why, Bush already looks like a complete IDIOT? He was the one that said they had evidence, that there was an imminent threat, yet nothing has been found yet, not even Saddam himself.

"Therefore, because there is no proof of their destruction, and they did exist, Saddam must have had them."

Yes there is proof of their destruction. Read the Weapons Inspectors reports. There all online. You complain about 'liberal rhetoric' yet your argument (He had them, no proof, he still has them) is based on wrong and incomplete information.



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1873 times:

We have a double standard because we are just simply EVIL. We all wish to conquer the world and take all its oil. We also want everyone to speak English and eat pizza (which at one time may have been Italian, but we stole it from them, just as we stole French ... er ... freedom fries). We also want to take away everyone's freedom of speech (but only if they disagree with us) and all their civil rights as well. We also want to force our culture on the whole world (which many say is not a culture at all, as they chow down a Big Mac and a Coke), and force everyone to watch CNN and and Michael Jackson.

I can go on and on, but I notice that many of you have already discovered our secret conspiracy.

Pete


User currently offlineDAVID B. From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3148 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1871 times:

You discribe the bush admin pete


Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1862 times:

Hey N79969-did you happen to catch that parent of an African American soldier killed in the first 2 weeks of battle cuss out the camera and blame G Dubya for the loss of life?

Being proud of their children...yes, because they gave their life for a cause, no matter what cause, but being proud of a nation that sent their children to fight an unneccessary war and DYING...no, of course they're not proud of that.

Many people don't go to the Army and serve to protect their nation, they can go and have a career only after doing the basic foot soldier work, unfortunately, those who did, may and have been killed.



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

You discribe the bush admin pete

I was describing ALL Americans. Including you, bubba.

Pete


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1827 times:



No Pete,

You're precisely describing what Bush wants to do.

But you should take away the word "Evil" who is a religious term used mainly by Bush and Republican senators to frighten Americans (so it's easier to bomb countries or to make huge tax reduction while making huge military expenses raise).


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1824 times:


What a stupid word twisting going on here. The facts are:

1. Iraq used WMD against Iran.

2. Iraq used WMD against its own people.



If the US were afraid of something, that was not of the gas they sold to Saddam Hussein to help him fight Iran.
That's more of nuclear or biological weapons. I even don't know if the gas is called "WMD".
I don't think it would scare anybody in the US to see a mad islamist with an hair spray full of mustard gas.

But was Bush afraid of weapons or afraid to lose control in this region ?

[Edited 2003-06-18 15:05:04]

User currently offlineBoeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

Also, if the chemical attacks were such a concern, why didnt' the US act sooner?

The point, made above, sums it up nicely: It's not whether Iraq ever had WMD, but whether they had them before the war, as Bush accused.



Free-thinking, left-leaning secularist
25 N79969 : B757/767, The answer to your question is 9/11. There was a definite before and after effect on our thinking. Sebolino, Give it a rest. France armed Sa
26 David b. : N79969, open up your mind and realize that bush may have lied his ass off about this.
27 Sebolino : Give it a rest. France armed Saddam to teeth during the 1980s. During the 1980's ? That's possible. Your country did exactly the same. Your country h
28 N79969 : David b., Please refrain from ever telling anyone about keeping an open mind. The irony of it is simply too much to bear. I acknowledge the possibilit
29 Prebennorholm : Sebolino: I even don't know if the gas is called "WMD". I don't think it would scare anybody in the US to see a mad islamist with an hair spray full o
30 Post contains images Sebolino : Dear Sebolino, you obviously haven't served in the military and learned about ABC-warfare. Dear Prebennorholm, Yes that's right I didn't make war. Pro
31 Sebolino : Sebolino, You are probably right. We should have just ignored Iran after their hostage-taking and their sponsorship of terrorism. That would have been
32 Boeing757/767 : Here's an interesting quote from Hans Blix in today's New York Times: "What surprises me, what amazes me, is that it seems the military people were ex
33 Post contains links Schoenorama : N79969: The US themselve also halted the inspections from working. They did so over and over. Ask Scott Ritter what he believes of the US interference
34 Lstc : 1. Iraq used WMD against Iran. Yes. The WMDs that were supplied by various countries including the US. 2. Iraq used WMD against its own people. Yes. T
35 QANTASFOREVER : Prebennorholm, 4. Thanks to the coalition forces Britain, Denmark, Poland and the USA there will not be WMDs in Iraq in the future. Uh, aren't you for
36 Delta-flyer : If this guy gets re-elected without evidence of WMDs being presented, I really will lose respect for the American public. Sounds to me like you alrea
37 Lstc : Sounds to me like you already have. No Pete, anyone can be fooled once, but "fool me twice shame on me..." There are good and bad administrations. The
38 Skymonster : Lets get this thing straight... Bush/Blair said they were going to war because of the WMDs. Of course, that was a load of rubbish - they were going to
39 Sebolino : Of course, that was a load of rubbish - they were going to war to remove Saddam Hussien. That's right. But if the point was only to help Iraq's people
40 FDXmech : If Blair knew the WMD's didn't exist but pursued the strategy he did. He knew it would be political suicide. The weapons will be found, Saddam is gone
41 N79969 : FDXMech is exactly right. Bush and Blair and others took a gamble on the well-founded belief that Saddam had an active WMD program. He used them befor
42 Sebolino : You may not have noticed but the US is leaving Saudi Arabia. It was announced 6 or 8 weeks ago. I didn't know, but that's a proof of what I am saying
43 N79969 : The US bases have been move to Qatar. I don't think there are plans to build a long term military presence in Iraq.
44 FDXmech : >>>I didn't know, but that's a proof of what I am saying ! Now it's sure the US will stay for a long time in Iraq.
45 Jaysit : WMDs don't matter anymore, you see. Now that Saddam Hussein is gone, the world is a safer place. So it didn't matter if he spent his people's money on
46 Dc10guy : Jaysit, At least dubya didn't lie about getting a blow job .... So a few thousand Iraqis are killed and a few hundred US g.i.s die .... At least Bush
47 Pacificjourney : Heard the latest ? Those looters took the WMD's. The world's most efficient and organised looters, it's obvious really.
48 N79969 : The looters also tied up Saddam & sons, right? He never really existed since he cannot be found.
49 Pacificjourney : They also shot JFK. War on Looters anyone ?
50 Dc10guy : The republican's and dubya know that the WMD is ...... Islam and that's what they want to destroy ....
51 N79969 : Wow, DC10 guy. Where did you come up with that brilliant insight? Was it from a televised interview with an illiterate, self-ordained holy man on the
52 Pacificjourney : Sounds like a Fox news exclusive to the rest of us. Oh yeah and lets get those looters as well. They know where all the WMD's are buried/stored/hidden
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
America's Double Standard On Terror posted Sat Dec 15 2001 07:33:29 by Lehpron
Double Standard Going On Here posted Thu Apr 18 2002 23:08:48 by DeltaSFO
Tale Of Two Michaels: A Racial Double Standard? posted Sun Nov 26 2006 16:51:55 by PROSA
Joe Biden Racial Comments--double Standard? posted Thu Jul 6 2006 23:58:40 by Texdravid
Double Cheating On A Cheater? posted Thu Mar 24 2005 16:30:02 by JetService
European Double Standard, Bosnia/Kosovo And Iraq posted Thu Feb 13 2003 18:24:15 by STT757
On Your Knees Americans! (Standard Oil) posted Mon Apr 25 2005 14:55:22 by NUair
US Secret Service Spied On Princess Diana posted Mon Dec 11 2006 20:18:41 by LTBEWR
Recourse On Ebay? posted Mon Dec 11 2006 13:40:10 by Andz
UN Downgrades Man's Impact On The Climate posted Mon Dec 11 2006 03:41:17 by Halls120