New photos.

[hXc_pwnage]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/20/congress.abuse/index.html

Just amazing.

[boysdontcry]

fucking cowards. that's seriously revolting.

[ohlookitspaul]

ugh. disgusting.

[open mind]

i don't know if amazing is a great way to describe the new photos, i'd go with something like twisted but that's me.

[hXc_pwnage]

I meant amazing as gross, horrible, hideous, etc.

[yeat182]

thats messed up.

[cal1082]

I saw these pictures yesterday on the news and the first thing that came to my mind was that I know some of these soldiers said they were ordered to do this for interrigation purposes. Why would they take this one then? You can't interrigate a dead prisoner?

[hXc_pwnage]

I think we can all finally agree on something.

[Kay Delonge]

Sick Americans, that's what I've always said...
And for one, is this really shocking? I think it all strted with theese lines:
We are one of the worlds free countries. Free contries don't attack eachother... Free countries don't develop weapons of mass-destruction...
George W Bush
*nice going*
Hail Michael Moore

[cal1082]

Sick Americans, that's what I've always said...
And for one, is this really shocking? I think it all strted with theese lines:
We are one of the worlds free countries. Free contries don't attack eachother... Free countries don't develop weapons of mass-destruction...
George W Bush
*nice going*
Hail Michael Moore

Did you know in the history of the world no two democracies have ever attacked each other?

[hXc_pwnage]

I think I will have to kind of sit here with cal on this one.

Hail Michael Moore? You are shitting me right?

[Kay Delonge]

I think I will have to kind of sit here with cal on this one.

Hail Michael Moore? You are shitting me right?

Well I kind of like Michael Moores new perspectives on your nation.(Maybe I'm off line, I've only see one of his televisions shows, and read some of the entries in stupid white men, so if he's done something stupid I'm not aware of, I'm terrible sorry for any unconvenience)
And no I didn't know that no democratic countries have attacked eachother, proves that democracy is a god thing then=)
But the point i tried to make from that quote was the fact that USA is the nummer one holder of weapons of mass destruction in this world. What would your response be if the NATO or UN-countries came to invade you? And where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Don't get me wrong here, I was offcourse just trying to provoke with me stating that all americans are sick. But I think eeryone should be able to tell the double morallity in our times latest events. I saw the Late show with Letterman last week(It's probably some days later here in Norway)
and one of the senators was on via satelite. He condemned(could one say that?) the way prisoners where treated in the Abu prison. But the interesting part was why this was inapropriet(dunno how to spell it...) behaviour. He said that this was wrong, cause "we can't lower ourselves to the level of the enemy, cause we are better then them" And at the same time he kept going and going about that the finest words ever written in the worlds litterature history, was from the american decleration of independence(...)that all men are created equal(...)
Isn't that one hell of a paradox?

Anyways peace out!

[sweetsugar]

Well I kind of like Michael Moores new perspectives on your nation.(Maybe I'm off line, I've only see one of his televisions shows, and read some of the entries in stupid white men, so if he's done something stupid I'm not aware of, I'm terrible sorry for any unconvenience)
And no I didn't know that no democratic countries have attacked eachother, proves that democracy is a god thing then=)
But the point i tried to make from that quote was the fact that USA is the nummer one holder of weapons of mass destruction in this world. What would your response be if the NATO or UN-countries came to invade you? And where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Don't get me wrong here, I was offcourse just trying to provoke with me stating that all americans are sick. But I think eeryone should be able to tell the double morallity in our times latest events. I saw the Late show with Letterman last week(It's probably some days later here in Norway)
and one of the senators was on via satelite. He condemned(could one say that?) the way prisoners where treated in the Abu prison. But the interesting part was why this was inapropriet(dunno how to spell it...) behaviour. He said that this was wrong, cause "we can't lower ourselves to the level of the enemy, cause we are better then them" And at the same time he kept going and going about that the finest words ever written in the worlds litterature history, was from the american decleration of independence(...)that all men are created equal(...)
Isn't that one hell of a paradox?

Anyways peace out!
Your knowledge of America is lacking. We destroy tons of WMD every year in Maryland. We need WMD because we have to play world police for all the other cowardly countries who wont fight for themselves. Seeing as in another post you said you were swedish or somethin like that. Well.......you guys never did shit anyway but stay neutral. Go complain about our country to someone who cares. We here enough of the world hating us, if it weren't for us Sweden would be ruled by Nazi-Germany right now.

[sweetsugar]

Excuse me, norwegian. That still doesn't change things much though does it.

[open mind]

Your knowledge of America is lacking. We destroy tons of WMD every year in Maryland. We need WMD because we have to play world police for all the other cowardly countries who wont fight for themselves. Seeing as in another post you said you were swedish or somethin like that. Well.......you guys never did shit anyway but stay neutral. Go complain about our country to someone who cares. We here enough of the world hating us, if it weren't for us Sweden would be ruled by Nazi-Germany right now.
at least your not telling the media to go away, i guess.

[yeat182]

Well I kind of like Michael Moores new perspectives on your nation.(Maybe I'm off line, I've only see one of his televisions shows, and read some of the entries in stupid white men, so if he's done something stupid I'm not aware of, I'm terrible sorry for any unconvenience)
And no I didn't know that no democratic countries have attacked eachother, proves that democracy is a god thing then=)
But the point i tried to make from that quote was the fact that USA is the nummer one holder of weapons of mass destruction in this world. What would your response be if the NATO or UN-countries came to invade you?

we never signed a cease fire agreement with another country stating we would give up our WMD's under UN supervision. Iraq did.

[VinnyVegas]

I am really getting sick and tired of people getting all bent out of shape over the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. I wasn't the least bit surprised when I heard that prisoners in Iraq were being abused. We worry too damn much about foreign abuse while the same is going on in the American prison system.

I have personally had the unfortunate experience of working as a prison librarian and trust me the situation in American prisons is awful. The guards will not hesitate to beat a prisoner to death. I have personally seen guards brutally assault inmates because they were "resisting" them. The American public is so sheltered and unknowledgeable when it comes to the prison system that it frightens me.

We American's seem to think that we have the world figured out, but it is actually quite the opposite. We try to help other nations before ourselves and eventually it's going to bite us in the ass.

For the record I don't condone the actions of the Iraqi guards.

[open mind]

i'm a convicted felon so i know about the prison system, but i don't think just because we fuck with our own it's okay or somehow not as bad when we go into another country and fuck with others.
it seems no matter where or why we hold prisoners, they are going to be abused, so the whole system needs reworking. i hope the outrage over the abuse gets people thinking about our prisons.

[Kay Delonge]

Your knowledge of America is lacking. We destroy tons of WMD every year in Maryland. We need WMD because we have to play world police for all the other cowardly countries who wont fight for themselves. Seeing as in another post you said you were swedish or somethin like that. Well.......you guys never did shit anyway but stay neutral. Go complain about our country to someone who cares. We here enough of the world hating us, if it weren't for us Sweden would be ruled by Nazi-Germany right now.

That last thing was a really relevant argument...Let me state it lke this...If it wasn't for the Europeans, there would be Indians smoking their peacepipe in your livingroom right now, and hey, they wouldn't even be called Indians...And do you HAVE to play world police?Give me the reason why you HAD to invade Iraq? And please don't tll the FAIRYtale about the WMD's, the only weapon that brings death in Iraq theese days, are the presence of American troops(And that is for both sides in the conflict. I get really sad everytime I see footage of American soldiers brought home in coffins or Arabs burying their children). Please enlighten my mind of lacking knowledgement.

~Did you know George Bush was the second dummest president of the United states? Guess who's the dummest...
American presidents IQ-ratings:
Bill Clinton - 182
Jimmy Carter - 175
John F. Kennedy - 174
Richard Nixon - 155
Franklin D. Roosevelt - 147
Harry S. Truman - 132
Lyndon B. Johnson - 126
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 122
Gerald Ford - 121
Ronald Reagan - 105
George Bush - 98
George W. Bush - 92
~

[cal1082]

That last thing was a really relevant argument...Let me state it lke this...If it wasn't for the Europeans, there would be Indians smoking their peacepipe in your livingroom right now, and hey, they wouldn't even be called Indians...And do you HAVE to play world police?Give me the reason why you HAD to invade Iraq? And please don't tll the FAIRYtale about the WMD's, the only weapon that brings death in Iraq theese days, are the presence of American troops(And that is for both sides in the conflict. I get really sad everytime I see footage of American soldiers brought home in coffins or Arabs burying their children). Please enlighten my mind of lacking knowledgement.

~Did you know George Bush was the second dummest president of the United states? Guess who's the dummest...
American presidents IQ-ratings:
Bill Clinton - 182
Jimmy Carter - 175
John F. Kennedy - 174
Richard Nixon - 155
Franklin D. Roosevelt - 147
Harry S. Truman - 132
Lyndon B. Johnson - 126
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 122
Gerald Ford - 121
Ronald Reagan - 105
George Bush - 98
George W. Bush - 92
~

I hope you do realize those are not actually from an IQ test that was taken by the Presidents?

[Kay Delonge]

Like it don't see what the fuck this war is about!
Man, USA gives Iraq and Saddam Hussein chemical and biological weapons to help Iraq defeat Iran in the eighties, and even helps Saddam to build him self up as the Iraqi dictator... The weapon parts that has been found in Iraq all was manufactured in the US...whats that?!
ANd Donald Rumsfeldt was in the board of a company(ABB) that in 2000 sold nuclear reactor parts to NOrth-Korea.The same Rumsfeldt now claims that North-Korea is a terrorist-state... Made kapitalism is a queword in this and all the other 18 countries USA have bombed since the end of WW2?

~Jeez~

[Kay Delonge]

I hope you do realize those are not actually from an IQ test that was taken by the Presidents?

Jepp, I realize that, it's a conclusion made by american researchers based on how they performed in school, their vocabulary, their knowledge of the world outside the US boardes and so on, but still...

[cal1082]

Jepp, I realize that, it's a conclusion made by american researchers based on how they performed in school, their vocabulary, their knowledge of the world outside the US boardes and so on, but still...

It used things like stress of voice in speeches, and Bush was penalized because he only recieved a MBA in college. It's not a real test. It's a completely fabricated way to figure out an IQ.

Here's my IQ test for the board. I look at quality of user name and quality of first post. Judging by your first post on the thread you made about the Rock Against Bush album I have you has having a low IQ.

[yeat182]

That last thing was a really relevant argument...Let me state it lke this...If it wasn't for the Europeans, there would be Indians smoking their peacepipe in your livingroom right now, and hey, they wouldn't even be called Indians...

what the fuck are you talking about? and if you really want to play "if it wasn't for us..." then if it wasn't for the US, europe would be under nazi rule, that is, if they managed to survive the first world war.


And do you HAVE to play world police?Give me the reason why you HAD to invade Iraq? And please don't tll the FAIRYtale about the WMD's, the only weapon that brings death in Iraq theese days, are the presence of American troops(And that is for both sides in the conflict. I get really sad everytime I see footage of American soldiers brought home in coffins or Arabs burying their children). Please enlighten my mind of lacking knowledgement.


saddam broke 17 UN resolutions including the last one which called for "serious consequences" should he not comply, which was unanimously approved by the UN. is that a good enough reason? as for world police, well, the UN certainly won't do anything when someone breaks their resolutions, so i guess someone has to enforce them.

~Did you know George Bush was the second dummest president of the United states? Guess who's the dummest...
American presidents IQ-ratings:
Bill Clinton - 182
Jimmy Carter - 175
John F. Kennedy - 174
Richard Nixon - 155
Franklin D. Roosevelt - 147
Harry S. Truman - 132
Lyndon B. Johnson - 126
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 122
Gerald Ford - 121
Ronald Reagan - 105
George Bush - 98
George W. Bush - 92
~


those numbers are insanely suspect.

[Kay Delonge]

Thanx! Is that a goos thing? can I blow up one of thoose places where people that not speak my language lives? a f-f-f-frogien country is that it? no wait, I've got it- foregin, no here it is- ahh foreign=)
No I'm just playing with you, I'm sorry I didn't know about the origin of the IQ test, just wanted to make a point for my ending. Sorry, my bad, I'll never mention IQ again. IQ is bad. Sounds almost like IraQ
-There's only so many ways I can make love with my hand-

[yeat182]

Like it don't see what the fuck this war is about!
Man, USA gives Iraq and Saddam Hussein chemical and biological weapons to help Iraq defeat Iran in the eighties, and even helps Saddam to build him self up as the Iraqi dictator... The weapon parts that has been found in Iraq all was manufactured in the US...whats that?!
ANd Donald Rumsfeldt was in the board of a company(ABB) that in 2000 sold nuclear reactor parts to NOrth-Korea.The same Rumsfeldt now claims that North-Korea is a terrorist-state... Made kapitalism is a queword in this and all the other 18 countries USA have bombed since the end of WW2?

~Jeez~

we never actually gave them chemcial or biological weapons. just for the record. i know its been twisted and distorted that we did, but the truth is we didn't.

and the majority of weapons found in Iraq have come from France and Russia.

i believe N. Korea was allowed to create nuclear reactors for a power source, so that point is irrelevant.

[cal1082]

Thanx! Is that a goos thing? can I blow up one of thoose places where people that not speak my language lives? a f-f-f-frogien country is that it? no wait, I've got it- foregin, no here it is- ahh foreign=)
No I'm just playing with you, I'm sorry I didn't know about the origin of the IQ test, just wanted to make a point for my ending. Sorry, my bad, I'll never mention IQ again. IQ is bad. Sounds almost like IraQ
-There's only so many ways I can make love with my hand-

Your IQ with the test I made up continues to lower with this post.

[sweetsugar]

I was going to reply in defense of my statement........but everyone else did such a good job I'm gonna be quit before I fuck it up.

[sweetsugar]

quiet even*

[Kay Delonge]

[QUOTE=yeat182]what the fuck are you talking about? and if you really want to play "if it wasn't for us..." then if it wasn't for the US, europe would be under nazi rule, that is, if they managed to survive the first world war.

Maybe you should try to read the entire thread first...


Originally Posted by sweetsugar
"you guys never did shit anyway but stay neutral. Go complain about our country to someone who cares. We here enough of the world hating us, if it weren't for us Sweden would be ruled by Nazi-Germany right now."

I was only responding to this argumentation which you indeed made fun of aswell....

[open mind]

saddam broke 17 UN resolutions including the last one which called for "serious consequences" should he not comply, which was unanimously approved by the UN. is that a good enough reason? as for world police, well, the UN certainly won't do anything when someone breaks their resolutions, so i guess someone has to enforce them
it's funny how we pick and choose what resolutions we enforce and who we believe should listen to the u.n.,israel has violated u.n. resolutions countless times, and is in violation of resolutions that apply to the whole middle east, that were cited in the case against iraq (like resolution 687 saying the entire mid east is a wmd free area of the globe), double standards and hypocrisy.

[yeat182]

it's funny how we pick and choose what resolutions we enforce and who we believe should listen to the u.n.,israel has violated u.n. resolutions countless times, and is in violation of resolutions that apply to the whole middle east, that were cited in the case against iraq (like resolution 687 saying the entire mid east is a wmd free area of the globe), double standards and hypocrisy.

regardless of what israel has done or hasn't done, they never signed a cease fire agreement stateing they would follow these UN resolutions. when iraq didn't follow them, they broke that cease-fire agreement, thus resulting in a renewal of hostilities. that doesn't apply to israel.

[cal1082]

it's funny how we pick and choose what resolutions we enforce and who we believe should listen to the u.n.,israel has violated u.n. resolutions countless times, and is in violation of resolutions that apply to the whole middle east, that were cited in the case against iraq (like resolution 687 saying the entire mid east is a wmd free area of the globe), double standards and hypocrisy.

I dont think a wmd free zone was ever set up. It was/is a desired goal, but i'm pretty sure this has not happpened yet.

[open mind]

I dont think a wmd free zone was ever set up. It was/is a desired goal, but i'm pretty sure this has not happpened yet.
i'm pretty sure you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

[open mind]

regardless of what israel has done or hasn't done, they never signed a cease fire agreement stateing they would follow these UN resolutions. when iraq didn't follow them, they broke that cease-fire agreement, thus resulting in a renewal of hostilities. that doesn't apply to israel.
bush didn't say iraq violated the cease fire agreement, bush said they broke u.n. resolutions, something our allies do left and right.

[cal1082]

i'm pretty sure you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

can you show me where it was established?

[hXc_pwnage]

Geez, this Kay kid is a douche.

That is all.

[yeat182]

bush didn't say iraq violated the cease fire agreement, bush said they broke u.n. resolutions, something our allies do left and right.

breaking those resolutions breaks the cease fire. it isn't hard to follow. israel has no cease fire, and there for, by them not following the resolutions, they aren't in danger of military action, unless the UN votes for it, and since they don't bother to enforce their own resoltuions, that isn't very likely, is it?

[sweetsugar]

It is my belief the US backs isreal for biblical reason. The united states was founded with christian principles whether you want to admit it or not, even with the freedom of religion, the nation was founded so that members of churches other than the catholic church could practice there beliefs, which were still pretty much christian faiths that believed in jesus christ. Now that we made that whole freedom of religion thing though, it's coming back to bite us in the ass. Especially the seperation of church and state. Which back when it was written I'm sure everyone kinda invisioned that america would be a dominately christian nation, which is slowly crumbling. The moral fiber is wearing thin. Those are the reasons we truely back Israel. Alot of the older generations (60-up in age) believe we should back Isreal because that was "God's chosen land".
Alot of our politicians hold these same beliefs to some degree. How many muslim or non christian politicians do you know?

[open mind]

It is my belief the US backs isreal for biblical reason. The united states was founded with christian principles whether you want to admit it or not, even with the freedom of religion, the nation was founded so that members of churches other than the catholic church could practice there beliefs, which were still pretty much christian faiths that believed in jesus christ. Now that we made that whole freedom of religion thing though, it's coming back to bite us in the ass. Especially the seperation of church and state. Which back when it was written I'm sure everyone kinda invisioned that america would be a dominately christian nation, which is slowly crumbling. The moral fiber is wearing thin. Those are the reasons we truely back Israel. Alot of the older generations (60-up in age) believe we should back Isreal because that was "God's chosen land".
Alot of our politicians hold these same beliefs to some degree. How many muslim or non christian politicians do you know?
you realize israel is a jewish state right?

[open mind]

can you show me where it was established?
u.n. resolution 687.

[open mind]

breaking those resolutions breaks the cease fire. it isn't hard to follow. israel has no cease fire, and there for, by them not following the resolutions, they aren't in danger of military action, unless the UN votes for it, and since they don't bother to enforce their own resoltuions, that isn't very likely, is it?
there have been plenty of cease fires in the 50 plus years of fighting that israel has broken, my point is we pick and choose what matters, so it's not like we're the country that backs up what the u.n. says or anything, i just felt like pointing out a double standard.

[cal1082]

u.n. resolution 687.

No where in resolution 687 was a wmd free zone set up in the middle east. Where did you hear this from?

[cal1082]

i'm pretty sure you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

Perhaps before you curse someone out you should look at the crap you put and i suppose you are getting it from some online source.

If you look at resolution 687 it says exactly:

Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East,

Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons,

Please at least look at the stuff you post before you claim it. :lipsrseal

[open mind]

No where in resolution 687 was a wmd free zone set up in the middle east. Where did you hear this from?
sure it does several times it talks about universal disarmament,an example would be.
stressing the importance of an early conclusion by the conference of disarmament of it works on a convention of the universal prohibition of chemical weapons and the universal adhereance thereto.

[open mind]

Perhaps before you curse someone out you should look at the crap you put and i suppose you are getting it from some online source.

If you look at resolution 687 it says exactly:

Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East,

Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons,

Please at least look at the stuff you post before you claim it. :lipsrseal
that's saying they have passed a resolution on a nuclear free zone in the region of the middle east, when they say recalling they are saying remember this resolution.
you looked right at it and it still didn't compute.

[sweetsugar]

you realize israel is a jewish state right?
What does that have to do with anything, they are still biblically God's Chosen people and in the end they are suppose to triumph over all. I had this conversation with an 80 year old woman yesterday at the airport. She shockingly agreed with everything I was saying, it was crazy.

[open mind]

the majority of americans are cristians, so we don't really have the same beliefs as israel, so your argument that the reason we support israel is because of our favored religions being compatible doesn't really hold up.

[cal1082]

that's saying they have passed a resolution on a nuclear free zone in the region of the middle east, when they say recalling they are saying remember this resolution.
you looked right at it and it still didn't compute.

You are a dumbass. First you said 687 established this zone, and now you say it's recalling a resolution. So which resolution set this zone up?

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/deen2.html

http://fas.org/nuke/control/menwfz/

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/971009/1997100930.html

Once again I'd say before you curse someone out you should look at the crap you put up and claim as fact. I'm guessing you get this crap from a far left site looking to bash Israel, and you dont even bother to check there facts :lipsrseal. Just look at the stuff before you post it.

[open mind]

the u.n. has made resolutions on a wmd free mid east on an annual basis since 1980.
http://www.adckazoo.com/news-109.htm
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-05/03/article05.shtml

[cal1082]

the u.n. has made resolutions on a wmd free mid east on an annual basis since 1980.
http://www.adckazoo.com/news-109.htm
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-05/03/article05.shtml

There is no zone! You are dead wrong when you say Israel is in volation of this zone:

"it's funny how we pick and choose what resolutions we enforce and who we believe should listen to the u.n.,israel has violated u.n. resolutions countless times, and is in violation of resolutions that apply to the whole middle east, that were cited in the case against iraq (like resolution 687 saying the entire mid east is a wmd free area of the globe), double standards and hypocrisy."

Once again show me the resolution in which this zone has been established.

[open mind]

There is no zone! You are dead wrong when you say Israel is in volation of this zone:

"it's funny how we pick and choose what resolutions we enforce and who we believe should listen to the u.n.,israel has violated u.n. resolutions countless times, and is in violation of resolutions that apply to the whole middle east, that were cited in the case against iraq (like resolution 687 saying the entire mid east is a wmd free area of the globe), double standards and hypocrisy."

Once again show me the resolution in which this zone has been established.
resolution 687, can't you read?

[cal1082]

resolution 687, can't you read?

687 did not set up a zone. Did you not see the links I put up? 687 was passed in the early 90's.


http://www.antiwar.com/ips/deen2.html
Syria Calls for Nuclear Free Middle East
by Thalif Deen
December 30, 2003

Why would Syria be calling for a nuclear free zone if 687 already set one up?

http://fas.org/nuke/control/menwfz/
"The longstanding proposal for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East includes a UN General Assembly proposal that, pending and during the establishment of such a zone, states in the resion declare solemnly that they will refrain, on a reciprocal basis, from producing, acquiring or in any other way possessing nuclear weapons and nuclear explosive devices and from permitting the stationing of nuclear weapons on their territory by any third party, to agree to place all their nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and to declare their support for the establishment of the zone and to deposit such declarations with the Security Council for consideration. The 1991 Madrid Peace Conference established a multinational mechanism to work on making the Middle East a nuclear weapon-free zone. The activities of the multilateral working group on Arms Control and Regional Security in promoting mutual confidence and security in the Middle East include establishment of a NWFZ. This mechanism, however, stalled in 1995 as a result of the Israeli position."

Are you that ignorant, or just dont want to admit you're wrong?

[open mind]

i guess only your links and articles count.
syria is calling a wmd free zone that people will auctually acknowledge and follow, but the u.n. has had annual resolutions calling for a wmd free zone since 1980 (and they apply to all countries involved), when the u.n recalled the wmd free zone in resolution 687 they were reinforcing what they already said numerous times in a bunch of other resolutions.
whos the ignorant one here that won't admit being wrong?

[cal1082]

i guess only your links and articles count.
syria is calling a wmd free zone that people will auctually acknowledge and follow, but the u.n. has had annual resolutions calling for a wmd free zone since 1980 (and they apply to all countries involved), when the u.n recalled the wmd free zone in resolution 687 they were reinforcing what they already said numerous times in a bunch of other resolutions.
whos the ignorant one here that won't admit being wrong?

The articles you posted say the same thing I'm saying?

One of your articles say:

"ADC urged the inter-national community to instead work seriously towards the creation of a Middle East entirely free of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)."......................"ADC notes that the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for Iraqi WMD disarmament also commits the international community to working purposively toward the creation of a Middle East free of all such weapons. In particular, UN Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991), which is the main resolution demanding Iraqi WMD disarmament and imposing sanctions against Iraq, commits the Council to this objective.".........."To date, no international effort or attention by the Council has been paid to this goal."

Do you even read your own articles?

[open mind]

so because they haven't tried to enforce it(except when it comes to iraq) it's not a resolution?

[yeat182]

i guess only your links and articles count.
syria is calling a wmd free zone that people will auctually acknowledge and follow, but the u.n. has had annual resolutions calling for a wmd free zone since 1980 (and they apply to all countries involved), when the u.n recalled the wmd free zone in resolution 687 they were reinforcing what they already said numerous times in a bunch of other resolutions.
whos the ignorant one here that won't admit being wrong?

i'm jumping in on this conversation a little late so forgive me if i'm way off base, but if the UN hasn't passed a resolution creating a zone, how can you say a zone exists? it seems there were proposals regarding the creation of a nuclear free zone, but these were never passed into resolutions, so therefor, how can any country be in violation of a zone that does not exist?

[open mind]

they have passed numerous resolutions on a wmd free zone they just haven't tried to enforce them but we made a big deal about it when it came to iraq (hence the hypocrisy)

[yeat182]

they have passed numerous resolutions on a wmd free zone they just haven't tried to enforce them but we made a big deal about it when it came to iraq (hence the hypocrisy)


it was a big deal when it came to iraq because they violated 17 UN resolutions and a cease fire.

also, if what you say is correct, it simply proves the utter ineffectiveness of the UN in enforcing its own resolutions.

[cal1082]

they have passed numerous resolutions on a wmd free zone they just haven't tried to enforce them but we made a big deal about it when it came to iraq (hence the hypocrisy)

The UN General Assembly has passed these annual resolutions. If you knew anyting about the General Assembly you would know that resolutions passed by them are recommendations and are not actual international law. :lipsrseal

[open mind]

i'm the ignorant one?
http://disarmament.un.org:8080/wmd/npt/1995RESME.htm

[cal1082]

The UN General Assembly has passed these annual resolutions. If you knew anyting about the General Assembly you would know that resolutions passed by them are recommendations and are not actual international law. :lipsrseal

[cal1082]

http://www.un.org/ga/57/about.htm

"the decisions of the Assembly have no legally binding force for Governments"

[open mind]

take note that not all resolutions mentioned were passed through the general assembly.

[cal1082]

take note that not all resolutions mentioned were passed through the general assembly.

Once again the site you posted says the same thing I've been saying.

"Recalling also General Assembly resolutions adopted by consensus supporting the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, the latest of which is resolution 49/71 of 15 December 1994,....................."Calls upon all States in the Middle East to take practical steps in appropriate forums aimed at making progress towards, inter alia, the establishment of an effectively verifiable Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological, and their delivery systems, and to refrain from taking any measures that preclude the achievement of this objective;"

Once again there is no established zone, so Israel is not in violation of this. Hence why you see Syria just this last year calling for a zone.

[open mind]

Once again the site you posted says the same thing I've been saying.

"Recalling also General Assembly resolutions adopted by consensus supporting the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, the latest of which is resolution 49/71 of 15 December 1994,....................."Calls upon all States in the Middle East to take practical steps in appropriate forums aimed at making progress towards, inter alia, the establishment of an effectively verifiable Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological, and their delivery systems, and to refrain from taking any measures that preclude the achievement of this objective;"

Once again there is no established zone, so Israel is not in violation of this. Hence why you see Syria just this last year calling for a zone.
your a site or 2 behind me, i posted the resolutions the u.n. has made straight from the u.n. homepage up above.

[cal1082]

your a site or 2 behind me, i posted the resolutions the u.n. has made straight from the u.n. homepage up above.

That's what I quoted?

http://disarmament.un.org:8080/wmd/npt/1995RESME.htm

"Recalling also General Assembly resolutions adopted by consensus supporting the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, the latest of which is resolution 49/71 of 15 December 1994,....................."Calls upon all States in the Middle East to take practical steps in appropriate forums aimed at making progress towards, inter alia, the establishment of an effectively verifiable Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological, and their delivery systems, and to refrain from taking any measures that preclude the achievement of this objective;"

[open mind]

so the rest of them don't count?they've passed resolutions on a wmd free zone in the mid east have they not?
now here comes the part about those ones not counting (hence my saying it's a tad hypocritical)

[cal1082]

so the rest of them don't count?they've passed resolutions on a wmd free zone in the mid east have they not?
now here comes the part about those ones not counting (hence my saying it's a tad hypocritical)

The General Assembly has passed these. The are not international law. To be binding and enforced they have to be passed by the Security Council.

[open mind]

but they were applied to iraq to build the case for war. (now comes the part of why they counted for iraq and no other country)

[cal1082]

but they were applied to iraq to build the case for war. (now comes the part of why they counted for iraq and no other country)

Learn how the UN works. To be binding they have to come from the security council. Resolution 687 was passed by the security council so it is binding.

[open mind]

so resolution 687 is law but only applies to iraq?

[cal1082]

so resolution 687 is law but only applies to iraq?

The purpose of 687 was to handle the situation between Iraq and Kuwait. If you'd read it you'd see pretty much the whole thing refers to Iraq.

The part you think established a zone only says it is an objective. Remember what the earlier article you posted said?

"In particular, UN Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991), which is the main resolution demanding Iraqi WMD disarmament and imposing sanctions against Iraq, commits the Council to this objective (THE WMD ZONE).".........."To date, no international effort or attention by the Council has been paid to this goal."

[open mind]

The purpose of 687 was to handle the situation between Iraq and Kuwait. If you'd read it you'd see pretty much the whole thing refers to Iraq.

The part you think established a zone only says it is an objective. Remember what the earlier article you posted said?

"In particular, UN Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991), which is the main resolution demanding Iraqi WMD disarmament and imposing sanctions against Iraq, commits the Council to this objective.".........."To date, no international effort or attention by the Council has been paid to this goal."
main purpose or not the stuff on wmds applies to all mid east countries according to the u.n.
and since the security council passed it is law.

[cal1082]

main purpose or not the stuff on wmds applies to all mid east countries according to the u.n.
and since the security council passed it is law.

What? What stuff on wmds specifically are you talking about that applies to all middle east countries?

[open mind]

i guess you didn't thoroughly read those links after all. :lipsrseal

[cal1082]

i guess you didn't thoroughly read those links after all. :lipsrseal

I want you to point out specifically what stuff on wmd's applies to all middle east countries. When you say "stuff on wmds" that's very general and I want to see specifically what you're talking about.

[open mind]

paragraph 14 of 687 according to the u.n.'s list of resolutions.

[cal1082]

paragraph 14 of 687 according to the u.n.'s list of resolutions.

I just told you about that 4 or 5 posts ago.

The part you think established a zone only says it is an objective. Remember what the earlier article you posted said?

"relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for Iraqi WMD disarmament also commits the international community to working purposively toward the creation of a Middle East free of all such weapons. In particular, UN Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991), which is the main resolution demanding Iraqi WMD disarmament and imposing sanctions against Iraq, commits the Council to this objective.".........."To date, no international effort or attention by the Council has been paid to this goal."

It's clear as day in front of your face.

[open mind]

the u.n. didn't say the rest of resolution 687 didn't apply, they just said take particular note of paragraph 14.

[cal1082]

the u.n. didn't say the rest of resolution 687 didn't apply, they just said take particular note of paragraph 14.

Below is exactly what 687 paragraph 14 says.

"Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East,

Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons, "

That in no way sets up a zone. It clearly says it is an objective to establish this zone.

[open mind]

that was an objective being put into law since it was put together by the security council, and was being enforced on iraq with paragraphs 8 through 13 (but it also applies to the rest of the mid east according to the u.n.)

[open mind]

let's just for the sake of argument say there is no zone set up (although i still think there is) israel has violated countless u.n. resolutions, and we turn our heads.

[cal1082]

let's just for the sake of argument say there is no zone set up (although i still think there is) israel has violated countless u.n. resolutions, and we turn our heads.

" objective being put into law."

That's fine if you want to argue the objective is a law. I've argued since the beginning that there is no established zone that Israel has broken, and was told I didnt know what the fuck I was talking about. You should check what you post before you post it, because I'm 110% positive there is no zone and you'll show your stupidity and ignorance everytime you say there is.

[open mind]

i still say you don't know what the fuck your talking about.
you've argued that resolutions that apply to all involved nations don't, makes sense.........(since we're gonna keep up with the names and insults, that only makes sense if your a dumbass) :lol2:

[cal1082]

i still say you don't know what the fuck your talking about.
you've argued that resolutions that apply to all involved nations don't, makes sense.........(since we're gonna keep up with the names and insults, that only makes sense if your a dumbass) :lol2:

Who says 687 applies to all nations?

I mean the whole thing is about Iraq, and they are the country that accepted all the provisions in the resolution. Every other country in the world did not have to accept the diffrent provisions that were in 687. It was just Iraq that did.

I dont even know what you aret talking about saying that 687 applies to all nations? It's clearly addressing Iraq?

[open mind]

did the u.n. not include resolution 687 in their list of resolutions on a wmd free zone?

[cal1082]

did the u.n. not include resolution 687 in their list of resolutions on a wmd free zone?

what list of resolutions on a wmd free zone are you talking about?

Are you talking about resolutions passed by the security council or the general assembly?

[open mind]

687 was a part of the list i put a link up to a couple pages back, and we both know it was passed by the security council.

[cal1082]

687 was a part of the list, and we both know it was passed by the security council.

Yes 687 was passed by the security council, and yes 687 calls for an objective to set up a wmd free zone. On the other hand no where in 687 does it establish this zone. It simply says it's an objective for the future.

That's all I'm saying. There is currently no zone set up.

[open mind]

i'm saying that in 687 they changed the objective from objective into law, the u.n. says paragraphs 8-13 apply to all middle east nations and paragraph 14 explains that.

[cal1082]

i'm saying that in 687 they changed the objective from objective into law, the u.n. says paragraphs 8-13 apply to all middle east nations and paragraph 14 explains that.

Like I said. That's fine if you want to argue the OBJECTIVE is now a law. You have to understand there has been no further attempts to set up this zone by the Security Council. So there is currently No Zone. And all I'm arguing is that you are wrong for saying Israel broke the Zone because there is no zone.

[open mind]

okay fine, this is just resulting in us going back and forth and getting nowhere and neither of us is about to budge.
you'll agree that israel has broken countless u.n. resolutions right?

[cal1082]

okay fine, this is just resulting in us going back and forth and getting nowhere and neither of us is about to budge.
you'll agree that israel has broken countless u.n. resolutions right?

I've never looked into the resolutions Israel has or has not broken that have been passed by the Security Council.

[ohlookitspaul]

I've never looked into the resolutions Israel has or has not broken that have been passed by the Security Council.
sorry to butt in but that statement sounded a lot like something scott mclellan would say. i just found it amusing.

sorry for the interruption...carry on.

[open mind]

well heres a incomplete list of resolutions passed by the security council and countries that have violated them (i hope it works)
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2417

[cal1082]

well heres a incomplete list of resolutions passed by the security council and countries that have violated them (i hope it works)
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2417

If all the info. is correct it does seem Israel and others have broken various resolutions.

[open mind]

If all the info. is correct it does seem Israel and others have broken various resolutions.
and no one is talking about starting a pre-emptive war and occupying these countries for years isn't that funny? i guess it makes sense because alot of those countries are our allies and that makes it so much better.

[cal1082]

and no one is talking about starting a pre-emptive war and occupying these countries for years isn't that funny? i guess it makes sense because alot of those countries are our allies and that makes it so much better.

Israel is in a continous war.

The reasons we attacked Iraq and used the resolutions as justification is because they directly affected our own national security.

I guess the key point is we didnt invade because the resolutions werent followed. We invaded because of the potential implications because these resolutions were not followed.

[open mind]

so because it's an ongoing conflict it's okay to ignore u.n. resolutions?
when did saddam say he was going to use wmds on our soil?

[cal1082]

so because it's an ongoing conflict it's okay to ignore u.n. resolutions?
when did saddam say he was going to use wmds on our soil?

No one said it was okay to ignore resolutions.

It all comes back to intelligence about terrorism links, and wmd's. Which is exactly why Clinton attacked over.

[open mind]

no one says it's okay but we do tend to ignore israels violations of u.n. resolutions don't we?
none of clintons "intelligence" was disputed.

[cal1082]

no one says it's okay but we do tend to ignore israels floating of u.n. resolutions don't we?
none of clintons "intelligence" was disputed.

It doesnt matter if the intelligence is disputed or not. Because in the end they either have them or they dont.

[open mind]

and it looks like bush was wrong, and they didn't have them, hence the problems bush is having.

[cal1082]

and it looks like bush was wrong, and they didn't have them, hence the problem with bush.

Was Clinton right? They both recieved there same intelligence from the same places. Tenet was head of the CIA in both administrations.

[open mind]

i don't know if clintons intelligence was better or not (have there been any investigations?), i do know bush's intelligence sucked and just because the intelligence came from the same source doesn't mean it's the same thing, time changes things.

[cal1082]

i don't know if clintons intelligence was better or not (have there been any investigations?), i do know bush's intelligence sucked and just because the intelligence came from the same source doesn't mean it's the same thing, time changes things.

Well obviously Clintons intelligence was not better if there are no weapons now.

[open mind]

or maybe clinton got rid of all of them with the bombings he ordered, who knows?
i'm no fan of clinton by the way, all politicians are fucking hypocrites, but clinton didn't get us into the situation we're in now.

[cal1082]

or maybe clinton got rid of all of them with the bombings he ordered, who knows?
i'm no fan of clinton by the way, all politicians are fucking hypocrites, but clinton didn't get us into the situation we're in now.

I'm not a WMD expert, but I'm guessing if Clinton was able to bomb there wmd's that there would be an obvious dispersment of chemical and biological weapons around these sties in the air and land.

Also if you use that argument you can also use the argument Bush got rid of them all with the bombings he ordered. (I doubt either are correct)

[open mind]

yeah i guess that argument doesn't work.
so do you think both clinton and bush were full of it?

[cal1082]

yeah i guess that argument doesn't work.
so do you think both clinton and bush were full of it?

No, I think they had weapons. Intelligence and Iraq's own actions on how it conducted with weapons inspectors all point to the idea that they did.

[open mind]

i'd probably go with them both being full of it myself.
there were legit reasons why iraq refused to let us in, because we also violated the terms of the cease fire agreement by using the inspections for spying.

[cal1082]

i'd probably go with them both being full of it myself.
there were legit reasons why iraq refused to let us in, because we also violated the terms of the cease fire agreement by using the inspections for spying.

lol, if you're willing to believe Saddam then yes we violated teh cease fire agreement by using inspectors as spys. I'm glad the UN didnt believe we violated the terms.

It shocks me you believe Iraq's government over ours.

[open mind]

lol, if you're willing to believe Saddam then yes we violated teh cease fire agreement by using inspectors as spys. I'm glad the UN didnt believe we violated the terms.

It shocks me you believe Iraq's government over ours.
hee-hee :lol2:
http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html

[cal1082]

hee-hee :lol2:
http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html

Scott Ritter was the man Iraq considered a spy at first and he's one of the inspectors that believe Saddam didnt have WMD's. Once Saddam started making places off limits to inspectors force was threatend, and inspectors were allowed back in after another resolution. Ritter then blames the US and GB for having stopped providing intelligence to them and says that we have taken over UNSCOM. Later on Ritter resigned from UNSCOM because he felt the US had taken over UNSCOM.

This just doesnt seem like the actions of a spy like Iraq had said. Ritter himself says the US in 2000 started investigating him as being a spy FOR Iraq because of his film he made.

[xnotedgex]

No, I think they had weapons. Intelligence and Iraq's own actions on how it conducted with weapons inspectors all point to the idea that they did.

hold on hold on...haven't you previously advocated the position that Iraq still has weapons and we will eventually find them? way to backpedal...you bushies are pretty good at that

Intelligence?? You mean the intelligence we got from the power-hungry Chalabi?? What a joke.

[cal1082]

hold on hold on...haven't you previously advocated the position that Iraq still has weapons and we will eventually find them? way to backpedal...you bushies are pretty good at that

Intelligence?? You mean the intelligence we got from the power-hungry Chalabi?? What a joke.

What? I was speaking in past tense so I used a term like "had". Currently, meaning right up till the war and after, i stil think Saddam has these weapons.

[open mind]

Scott Ritter was the man Iraq considered a spy at first and he's one of the inspectors that believe Saddam didnt have WMD's. Once Saddam started making places off limits to inspectors force was threatend, and inspectors were allowed back in after another resolution. Ritter then blames the US and GB for having stopped providing intelligence to them and says that we have taken over UNSCOM. Later on Ritter resigned from UNSCOM because he felt the US had taken over UNSCOM.

This just doesnt seem like the actions of a spy like Iraq had said. Ritter himself says the US in 2000 started investigating him as being a spy FOR Iraq because of his film he made.
when did the link i put up mention scott ritter?

[cal1082]

when did the link i put up mention scott ritter?

it didnt, but that is the man the Iraqis accused of spying.

[open mind]

i didn't base my belief that we violated our cease fire agreement with iraq by using weapon inspections to spy on them because of what the iraqis said.
did you read the link?

[cal1082]

i didn't base my belief that we violated our cease fire agreement with iraq by using weapon inspections to spy on them because of what the iraqis said.
did you read the link?

Yes, and i've ready plenty of other stuff about UNSCOM and Ritter to form an opinion on it. The original claim for spying came from Saddam and Iraq.

[open mind]

so you think that when officials are unwilling to deny they were spying on iraq through weapons inspections, that they are really denying it?

[cal1082]

so you think that when officials are unwilling to deny they were spying on iraq through weapons inspections, that they are really denying it?

read up on everything and you can form your own opinion. The claim of spying though invovled Scott Ridder, and with everything else that has happened since this claim I think it's obvious he wasnt spying for the US and Israel.

[open mind]

if officials are unwilling to deny the spying they are saying it happened.

[cal1082]

if officials are unwilling to deny the spying they are saying it happened.

Like I said based on everything that has happened since Iraq made the claim of spying I dont believe there was.

UNSCOM used western intelligence to help in its search. First it used US intelligence then it used Israeli intelligence to look at US intelligence like the spy plane photos. Annan didnt like the fact that UNSCOM used western intelligence because then you have independent players affecting a UN coordinated group. On the other hand where is UNSCOM suppose to get its intelligence from? It was a relatively small group and had to rely on various intelligence outlets to get its information. That's where the spying claims comes into play.

[cal1082]

Richard Butler who was exec. of UNSCOM had the best reasoning for using western intelligence.

Originally in 687 Iraq was give like 15 days or so to disclose all of it's weapons and from the beginning it was obvious to the inspectors Iraq was not cooperating. To get over this deception they had to find the best intelligence possible and Israel and the US had some of the best.

[open mind]

according to the washington posts article on u.s. spying through iraqi weapons inspections "spokesman for the cia, white house, and state department declined to repeat any categorical denials".if we didn't use weapons inspections to spy why not deny that we didn't?

[cal1082]

according to the washington posts article on u.s. spying through iraqi weapons inspections "spokesman for the cia, white house, and state department declined to repeat any categorical denials".if we didn't use weapons inspections to spy why not deny that we didn't?

Again, it all comes down to what I said earlier.

UNSCOM used western intelligence to help in its search. First it used US intelligence then it used Israeli intelligence to look at US intelligence like the spy plane photos. Annan didnt like the fact that UNSCOM used western intelligence because then you have independent players affecting a UN coordinated group. On the other hand where is UNSCOM suppose to get its intelligence from? It was a relatively small group and had to rely on various intelligence outlets to get its information. That's where the spying claims comes into play.

[open mind]

the allegations aren't that unscom got intelligence from us, but that we used unscom and the weapon inspections as tools to spy on iraq.

[cal1082]

the allegations aren't that unscom got intelligence from us, but that we used unscom and the weapon inspections as tools to spy on iraq.

Yes it is. That's what the whole story revolves around? They were recieving intelligence from us and in return we learned more and more about Saddams weapons programs as the intel progressed.

[open mind]

dude officials confirmed we used the weapon inspections to spy, that's the story.

[cal1082]

dude officials confirmed we used the weapon inspections to spy, that's the story.

You need to learn and read about the whole story if you dont think the spying was about US and Israel intelligence regarding UNSCOM.

[open mind]

you need to face the reality that we spyed on iraq through weapons inspections(no one even bothers to deny it), and that would be a violation of the cease fire with iraq.

[cal1082]

you need to face the reality that we spyed on iraq through weapons inspections(no one even bothers to deny it), and that would be a violation of the cease fire with iraq.

How did we spy, and what I mean by that was how did we use UNSCOM to spy for us and for what purposes?

[open mind]

"united states officials said today that american spies had worked undercover on the teams of united nations arms inspectors"
sorry i'm not plugged into the intelligence community so i don't know classified information.

[cal1082]

"united states officials said today that american spies had worked undercover on the teams of united nations arms inspectors"

First I'd ask which officials, nameless officials are always hard to argue with.

Second, what were we spying for?

[open mind]

way to fall back on that old line. (Maybe i'll get some motivation and check on it later)
how the fuck do i know what we were spying for? even if i did it wouldn't excuse the fact that we used the inspections for spying would it?

[cal1082]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/scomspy2.htm

The whole article is a good read, but one sentence in particular is what is important in the spying issue.

"Tying UNSCOM to U.S. intelligence aimed at ousting Saddam Hussein would undermine Butler's usefulness....."

If you can prove US was using intelligence from UNSCOM to oust Saddam than you have a argument for spying. Other wise it doesnt hold much water.

[cal1082]

way to fall back on that old line. (Maybe i'll get some motivation and check on it later)
how the fuck do i know what we were spying for? even if i did it wouldn't excuse the fact that we used the inspections for spying would it?

Spying for what though is an important question. If you would read and understand the whole situation you'd see that. Instead you are arguing from one article without looking at the history on it.

If we used intelligence from UNSCOM and vice versa for wmd purposes than if falls in line with the purpose of UNSCOM, but if we used intel. from UNSCOM and UNSCOM used our intel. for the purpose of oustanding Saddam you have an argument.

[open mind]

it's funny you say my quotes don't count because they don't name who's talking and you turn around and give me an anonomous quote. :lol2:
we used the inspections to spy on iraq, PERIOD, NO ONE DENIES IT!!!

[cal1082]

it's funny you say my quotes don't count because they don't name who's talking and you turn around and give me an anonomous quote. :lol2:
we used the inspections to spy on iraq, PERIOD, NO ONE DENIES IT!!!

My unamed quote is not used to acccuse like yours is. Your quote that says "offiicals say we were spying" is the bases for your argument that we were spying. You're standing behind an unamed claim and that's never smart.

My quote could have come from a 10 year old and it wouldnt matter because it an assement of the spying situation. The whole question of spying is about how intelligence was used on both ends. Read up on it and you'd see that, that is the main question was if intel. was used for finding weapons or used to oust Saddam.

[open mind]

your quote is defending a guy accused of spying, it's not that different then a quote accusing someone of something.if it came for a ten year old no one would take it seriously.
it doesn't matter how it was used, spying using weapon inspections, for any reason was a violation of the cease fire agreement with iraq.

[cal1082]

it doesn't matter how it was used spying using weapin inspections for any reason was a violation of the cease fire agreement with iraq.

The hell it wouldnt. UNSCOM's purpose was to oversee the destruction of these WMD's. If UNSCOM used western intelligence for the purpose of uncovering weapons because of the stone-walling the Iraq's did, it would fall in line with the purpose of UNSCOM. It goes the other way around too. On the other hand if this intel. used to undermine the Saddam regime and remove him from office it would go against the purpose the UN created UNSCOM for. Why can't you see that?

[cal1082]

your quote is defending a guy accused of spying, it's not that different then a quote accusing someone of something.

"Tying UNSCOM to U.S. intelligence aimed at ousting Saddam Hussein would undermine Butler's usefulness....."

How does this quote defend anyone? I put it up to show the spying argument. If US used UNSCOM to get rid of Saddam than it kills the purpose of UNSCOM and you have an argument for spying.

[open mind]

justify it however you want the fact remains that we spied on iraq though weapon inspections and that was a violation of the cease fire agreement with iraq.
i don't see how anyone with any measurable intelligence would buy the, oh that intel we got from unscom was just overflow and we couldn't not take it from them.

[cal1082]

All I can say is read about the situation. It's obvious you havent read much because earlier you said, "the allegations aren't that unscom got intelligence from us," and that is a huge, huge part of the spying argument.

[open mind]

"Tying UNSCOM to U.S. intelligence aimed at ousting Saddam Hussein would undermine Butler's usefulness....."

How does this quote defend anyone? I put it up to show the spying argument. If US used UNSCOM to get rid of Saddam than it kills the purpose of UNSCOM and you have an argument for spying.
it defends unscom and the u.s., and gives a good word for butler.

[cal1082]

i don't see how anyone with any measurable intelligence would buy the, oh that intel we got from unscom was just overflow and we couldn't not take it from them.

What?

"just overflow and we couldn't take if from them"??????? What are you talking about?

[cal1082]

it defends unscom and the u.s., and gives a good word for butler.

lol, no it doesnt. It's saying if you can tie the US to using UNSCOM intel for the purpose of ousting Saddam than it undermines the purpose of UNSCOM, and then gives credit to your allegations of spying.

No wonder you dont get it. You don't even understand the quote.

[open mind]

All I can say is read about the situation. It's obvious you havent read much because earlier you said, "the allegations aren't that unscom got intelligence from us," and that is a huge, huge part of the spying argument.
i don't need to read any more then i have, no one will deny we used weapon inspections to spy on iraq, and spying on iraq through weapons inspections was a violation of the cease fire agreement we had with them ( i don't need bullshit on how it was overflow or why it was okay, because clearly it wasn't)

[open mind]

lol, no it doesnt. It's saying if you can tie the US to using UNSCOM intel for the purpose of ousting Saddam than it undermines the purpose of UNSCOM, and then gives credit to your allegations of spying.

No wonder you dont get it. You don't even understand the quote.
that's not how it was framed, the general flow of the article is a defense of all involved, but i do get that we broke our cease fire agreement with iraq through our spying that's all i need to know you condescending prick. :lol2:

[cal1082]

that's not how it was framed the general flow of the ari=ticle is a defense of all involved, but i do get that we broke our cease fire agreement with iraq through our spying that's all i need to know you condescending prick. :lol2:

You might think I'm a prick, and that's fair because I get frustrated and am sometimes condescending when I'm talking to someone are debating someone who doesnt understand the entire situation.

[open mind]

You might think I'm a prick, and that's fair because I get frustrated and am sometimes condescending when I'm talking to someone are debating someone who doesnt understand the entire situation.
i get frustrated when someone refuses to look at the bottom line.

[cal1082]

i get frustrated when someone refuses to look at the bottom line.

the bottom line of one article you read?

[open mind]

the bottom line is that no one denies we used weapon inspections for spying, and that that was a violation of the cease fire agreement with iraq.

[cal1082]

the bottom line is that no one denies we used weapon inspections for spying, and that that was a violation of the cease fire agreement with iraq.

I've seen many deny that we used UNSCOM as a spy tool. I say many, actual probably just as much who deny than I've seen that dont deny.

[open mind]

anything that's dated after the article i posted?
i'd like to see them.

[cal1082]

anything that's dated after the article i posted?
i'd like to see them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/269435.stm

http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/02/iraq.us.02/
"Clinton administration officials have, all along, acknowledged gaining valuable information about Iraq as a byproduct of its cooperation with UNSCOM in rooting out President Saddam Hussein's forbidden missile, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.

But Leavy disputed claims that U.S. intelligence directly used UNSCOM to penetrate Iraq's security forces and undermine Hussein.

"No intelligence that was gathered to support UNSCOM was used for Iraqi regime-change activities," he said."

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990107/1999010758.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/unscom010899.htm

Like I said earlier it comes down to how this intel. was used. Was it used to get over the wall the Iraq's created to find weapons, or was it used to undermine and oust Saddam.

[open mind]

i asked if you had any articles or denials from after the article i posted remember?
if you believe that line i got a bridge i'd like to sell you.

[cal1082]

i asked if you had any articles or denials from after the article i posted remember?
if you believe that line i got a bridge i'd like to sell you.

they've denied spying to undermine the regime. That's what the articles I posted all said, and that's the question that has to be answered in the spying allegations. Did intel. benfit the UNSCOM mandate or was it used to try to oust the regime.

[open mind]

those are the initial denials do you have anything recent?
you are aware that it doesn't matter what they spied for under the terms of the cease fire right?

[cal1082]

those are the initial denials do you have anything recent?
you are aware that it doesn't matter what they spied for under the terms of the cease fire right?

It's hard to consider it spying if intel gathered by the US from UNSCOM was used to help UNSCOM find these weapons because Iraq was not cooperating. The US has a right to help it's the unappropriate use that would be wrong.

I'd like to see also where the UN condemened or reported that the US did break the cease fire if your case it to be considered correct.

[open mind]

what's wrong is the spying.

[cal1082]

what's wrong is the spying.

You dont understand beacause you dont understand the situation.

UNSCOM is a UN created organization that reported to the UN security council. I ask you, how is a group like this suppose to get intel. and have intel looked at for observation? Who are they suppose to go to, to do this job?

Western intelligence like that of the US and Israel assisted UNSCOM in looking at intel. and gathering intel. As Butler stated, Iraq made a road block early in the inspections and it was UNSCOMS job to clear these road blocks to find out the truth. That being the case they went to the best intelligence agiences in the world. Now yes, the US and Israel with this relationship with UNSCOM got good information, and UNSCOM recieved information from the US. The point is if information gathered by either was used for the purpose of UNSCOM. That puprose was to find the weapons.

[cal1082]

A good start would be if you could answer this first question.

"UNSCOM is a UN created organization that reported to the UN security council. I ask you, how is a group like this suppose to get intel. and have intel looked at for observation? Who are they suppose to go to, to do this job?"

[open mind]

You dont understand beacause you dont understand the situation.

UNSCOM is a UN created organization that reported to the UN security council. I ask you, how is a group like this suppose to get intel. and have intel looked at for observation? Who are they suppose to go to, to do this job?

Western intelligence like that of the US and Israel assisted UNSCOM in looking at intel. and gathering intel. As Butler stated, Iraq made a road block early in the inspections and it was UNSCOMS job to clear these road blocks to find out the truth. That being the case they went to the best intelligence agiences in the world. Now yes, the US and Israel with this relationship with UNSCOM got good information, and UNSCOM recieved information from the US. The point is if information gathered by either was used for the purpose of UNSCOM. That puprose was to find the weapons.
don't tell me what i do or don't understand, the problem isn't what we gave unscom but what we got from them.
i don't buy the line that we only got info on wmds, unscom gave us info on saddams whereabouts among other things, that had nothing to do with the location of the weapons he supposedly had.

[open mind]

A good start would be if you could answer this first question.

"UNSCOM is a UN created organization that reported to the UN security council. I ask you, how is a group like this suppose to get intel. and have intel looked at for observation? Who are they suppose to go to, to do this job?"
why are you trying to deflect the real issue here?
the issue isn't how we helped unscom but how we used them for our own ends.

[cal1082]

i don't buy the line that we only got info on wmds, unscom gave us info on saddams whereabouts among other things, that had nothing to do with the location of the weapons he supposedly had.

At least your getting to specifics that would have undermined the purpose of UNSCOM. Do you have evidence to show US was getting information other than wmd programs?

[cal1082]

why are you trying to deflect the real issue here?
the issue isn't how we helped unscom but how we used them for our own ends.

I'm not. You dont seem to follow so I was breaking it down to get to the main issue.

I'll ask the same question.

how is a group like this suppose to get intel. and have intel looked at for observation? Who are they suppose to go to, to do this job?

[open mind]

I'm not. You dont seem to follow so I was breaking it down to get to the main issue.

I'll ask the same question.

how is a group like this suppose to get intel. and have intel looked at for observation? Who are they suppose to go to, to do this job?
where they get their info isn't the problem, the problem is with the info they passed back to us.

[open mind]

At least your getting to specifics that would have undermined the purpose of UNSCOM. Do you have evidence to show US was getting information other than wmd programs?
heres what some inspectors had to say about how things went.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/experts/faustian.html

[open mind]

glad that's settled.