The Internet is your friend
 

"The Security Council required Iraq to unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities (para. 8 (a) of resolution 687 (1991)). Iraq is required to submit to the Secretary-General, within 15 days of the adoption of resolution 687 (1991), a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items just mentioned in the chemical area (para. 9 (a) of resolution 687 (1991)). Iraq is further required to agree to urgent, on-site inspection by the Special Commission of its chemical capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself (para. 9 (a) of resolution 687 (1991)). Other acts required of Iraq include the yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all chemical items specified in paragraph 37 of this report (para. 9 (b) (ii) of resolution 687 (1991)).

Iraq's first chemical full, final and complete disclosure [FFCD] was provided in 1992. During 1993 and 1994, the Commission received considerable information from supporting Governments on supplies of chemical weapons-related material to Iraq. This information not only contradicted statements made in the 1992 disclosure but also showed large gaps in that document. When confronted with these deficiencies, Iraq provided a new disclosure in March 1995. [S/1996/258] Iraq officially stated that the March 1995 FFCD was complete and accurate and that there was no additional information available. New information obtained by UNSCOM in August and September 1995 clearly showed that Iraq's FFCD presented on 25 March 1995, the attachment of 27 March 1995 and the addenda to the attachment, received on 29 May 1995, were incorrect and incomplete. The March 1995 FFCD omitted information on major militarily significant chemical weapons capabilities, such as additional types of warfare agents, advanced agent and precursor production, stabilization and storage technologies, new types and numbers of munitions and field trials and additional sites involved in the programme. On 07 October 1995 Iraq provided UNSCOM with a number of revised chapters, which covered only those areas already raised by UNSCOM as examples of shortcomings in the existing FFCD. [S/1995/864]"

from: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/unscom.htm

.

And there has still been no hard evidence pulled from Iraq.
Nothing.
Or it would have been paraded around on TV for months.

Even if Saddam did have some weapons ability.(what country doesn't ?)
He did not have the capacity to strike against the US.

There was no eminent threat from Iraq.
And there was no justification for this war.

Both president Bush and vice president Chaney blatantly lied to congress.

Clinton tells a half truth about getting ab BJ and all hell breaks loose.

Bush and Chaney start a war with lies to congress and nothing happens.

There is just something really wrong with this situation.

:joker:
RichC

.

Presented with evidence which you demanded, you engage in fantasy and denial. And weird semi-allegations.

B

I don't follow. He was asked to destroy a list of items. He went around the mulberry bush again and again. What's your point? That nothing went in? That the list too was a fabrication and lies by so many people?

Oh, now we are on "even if"? How did you determine he did not have the capacity? Did Osama have a cruise missile?

Did you read what botnst posted or did it just not fit the finding you wanted?

You found proof of that that will convict him? Even the Dems didn't find it. A few months ago, they tried to do it and when the Reps changed sides and wanted to go ahead with an inquiry, they felt their hand wasn't strong enough to make it work. So, they decided to stick with the status quo. That way, people like you can keep saying "Bush lied" and nobody will be able to prove one way or the other. But hey, you keep taking about proof and all that so you should know it well, right?

Because he set out with one idea and he is looking for reasons to support it. IOW, he needs evidence to JUSTIFY an opinion instead of FORMing an opinion.

Saddam was playing games to look like he might have WMD to look
strong to the USA and Iran.

It is the CIA's job to figure stuff like this out and give accurate advise.

Not sure. Was there a clause in the treaty that allowed games? He played and lost.

That would involve some guesswork since you will NEVER have all the pieces of the puzzle. You are going to have some accuracy and some inaccuracy.

We also lost by getting into a war we did not need, can't
get out of and can't pay for.

I am not saying the CIA's job is easy,
The CIA got fooled by Saddam and pressured by Bush into making the wrong
call. The CIA can to do better than that.

What evidence ?

Fantasy and denial ?

There has been no evidence what so ever that Saddam had any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
How am I in denial ?

How can I prove something is not there ?
The military cant find it, the CIA and FBI cannot find it.
Nobody has found anything, and I am the one that is in denial.

And if you guys don't understand that the democrats are now playing
hardball because of the siht republicans have pulled, look back at the congressional elections.

And now think what is going to happen before the next presidential elections. Do you think they might be waiting for the right time to go after Bush and Chaney ?

:joker:
RichC
.

Exactly.

It reminds me of the time that the Russians shot down an amreican airliner over near north Korea by accident, thinking it was some type of bomber and wouldn't admit it was a case of mistaken identity because they didn't want to admit their equipment was not better than that.

Tom W

That's what I think, too.

B

Now you've stepped into a zone without me.

Speaking of mistakes, it was a Korean airliner. The US Navy shot down an Iranian airliner under similar tactical circumstances.

Ask the Kurds or Iranians. They might have a different take on whether he had it. They are kinda dead right now so you might have to use John Edwards Crossing Over shows to get in touch with them

I think you need to ask "How can I prove something was NEVER there". There is an answer to that too. Go look at the shipping manifests and what he signed for and paid for.

I'm not sure. Why don't you make a statement as to whether he did receive the stuff the UN said he received? You never get to the point about that one. AFAIK, he was told that he got a certain list of materials and was made to account for them which he agreed to and then reneged on the agreement.

Well, you can keep speculating about whether they are waiting for the right time, the weather was wrong, the world was turning, the sun was not shining. Fact is they had their chance when the Reps agreed to go for it and they didn't want to. If they had a good hand, they would have gone for it. They bluffed and got called and folded. Plain and simple.

Must have been a South Korean liner, then. The point being that it was not one of theirs.

When we shot down the Iranian Airliner we promptly acknowledged our mistake.

That does not bring back any of the innocent folks who died. My point was about not admitting something that might make you appear vulnerable....something much easier to pull off if you happen to be a ruthless dictator than a leader in the United States with our free press.

Tom W