Om Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 So we’re no longer counting the 90's? Really? Just so you know, for the articles all I did was a Google search using “iraq denied access UN inspectors,” and pick a few at random. There were dozens to choose from ... I just stopped after a few to make a point. I could have posted a whole lot more, or even used a hard cut-off date, I suppose ... I guess it just never occurred to me that anyone believed the UN Inspections were never interfered with – or access denied – in the years leading up to the war. That, or I guess it never occurred to me that they were all fabrications or N/A due to expiration of a statue of limitations. Have we not rather lost sight of the big picture, here? As to the first link ... did you look at it at all? Maybe even dig around a bit ... perhaps dip into this part?: [web]http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/13456.htm[/web] In making the case for the war, it even manages, among other things, to talk about WMD ... and inspections ... and access ... and so much more. It’s pretty thorough, I think you’ll admit. Kind of adopts that whole “totality of circumstances” approach I and a couple others have talked about a couple times. It’s amazing, really, the extent to which the United States Government and the United Nations fabricated excuses to go to war with this honest, forthright man from Baghdad. Gbear, I guess the truth is I just don’t understand where you’re coming from; on this, specifically, or even in terms of why you opposed the war (you did, right?). Maybe we can do this differently at some point, because frankly I don’t have the stomach or time for this kind of thing any more. Having briefly dipped my toes again in this case, I’m reminded why I usually steer clear of these “debates” on the politics of the war. So ... if you ever have the time or inclination, please consider writing up a piece on what you would have done differently if YOU had been President on 9/11. Resolution 1441, timelines ... that kind of thing. If nothing else ... look at the [web]http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline.htm[/web] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 8 minutes? You're basing your side on 8 min? Even thoug hteh inspectors were fine with that? IT can take 8 min to find somebody with the authority to recognize the UN inspectors. 8min:rotflmao: I bet they moved the whole WMD factory in that time. Was anybody watching the back? Maybe somebody snuck out with the marmelade. Seriously, you justify our war on an 8 min delay? I would hope somebody was watching the back door, so what exactly do you think happened? They were able to inspect the whole place. They got readings from everywhere they wanted. Do you think they bleached the whole place in 8 min? Seriously? Don't you think that would have made the inspectors a little suspicious if bleach came up in the test results? Seriously, Blix and the rest of the inspectors had no problem with the 8 min. I suspect they have a little more knowledge than you or I do. Since 97? I have no idea. But evidently nobody else in charge in the US did either. I have said repeatedly I was for this war to stop the spread of WMD? How are we doing on that score by the way? If the WMD were sold off, destroyed, stored outside Iraq, ect., then our war was for naught in terms of the original purpose of the war. Given our priorities in the war, and latter evidence about the quality of our intel before it, we screwed up by following Bush's lead on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 gbear... It is a factual rebuttal to your hideously myopic view of inspections in Iraq. there's obviously no room for discussion here. believe as you chose. the leaps you folks make are sometimes truly amazing. but I understand why you have to make them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 How long does it take to remove a gallon jug from a cabinet and hide it in an underground safehold? What would constitute a problem in your mind? An hour? A day? A Week? Unfettered access means exactly that. As such, the UN inspectors were denied access. The broader picture please. Did Saddam EVER have WMDs? If yes, what happened to them? You want to trust Blix, but not Tony Blair. Blix also said the 12 Chemical tipped missiles were no threat. Even though they were banned and have only one use (to deliver chemicals). Why do Liberals always want to US to intervene when we have nothing to gain (Liberia, Bosnia, Somalia etc) but cry and moan when we intervene and have something to gain? All of a sudden, THEN we have to let the UN decide our fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 OM, Your two article you just posted: The first one is dated Septemebr 2002. The second contains a time line whose last date is Nov 17, 2002. Well, according to the timeline you posted earlier, the inspection began Nov 27, 2002. Odd no? My point is that we sent inspectors over there. Those on this thread say the inspectors were denied access. That's patently untrue. that's one of the smoking guns the inspectors were looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Kilmer, We have claimed Iraq was MAKING WMD. Are you suggesting they moved the whole lab in 8 min? where? Oh, and of course they cleaned up all traces. You ask about a jug, a jug you've never seen or that anybody else has ever seen. You made up the jug and are now asking why we couldn't find it? Of course it's the 8 min delay. Seriously, the experts were okay with it, but you're not? The experts said repeatedly they had access everywhere they wanted. But you prefer to make up a gallon jug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 gbear, you said yourself that they were denied full access to the scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 WHAT? Where do you get that from? We didnt say he was MAKING them. We said he HAD them, he USED them, and he was trying to make and procure more of them. OUR experts wer not okay with it. The UN experts were kicked out and yet still you'd rather believe them over our own sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Are they still being denied? The scientist don't trust us and don't want to talk to us. They didn't then, and they don't now. "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." Excuse me, but what does your point have to do with the patently false statement made above? (evidently not the first made in arguement for the war) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Kilmer, I missed it. What have OUR OWN SOURCES that I should trust over the UN turned up? Oh, still nothing... Still, the UN had access everywhere they wanted. Nothing you have said changes that. Article after article states inspectors saying as much. You are saying you had a problem with one 8 min delay where they found nothing and no traces. Nobody with experience has had problems with the 8 min. "Where do you get that from? We didnt say he was MAKING them. We said he HAD them, he USED them, and he was trying to make and procure more of them. "exactly. As apposed to him making them huh? he was only "trying to make them." Sorry. Where's the beef? You really diferentiate between those 2 statements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Your unreal today. We have testimony from freed scientists claiming that he helped destroy WMDs days before the war. We have a scientist that SHOWED us where they had hidden a centrifuge in his backyard as well as documents on how and when to restart the program. Every time we find more evidence (labs, materials etc) the left is quick to dismiss it and even quicker to forget about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candy Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Hey ... wasn't that Alan Funt I just saw coming out of the head? Pretty good, gbear ... I almost fell for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Kilmer, only problem was no centerfuge? Destroyed them, but no trace elements? Before the war we said we would have found traces (that we didn't) where Iraq said they had destroyed WMD. Now, they destroyed them , and we still can't find traces, but we believe this story? why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 gbear- They're just playing the littlle debate game they play where they try to change the subject to something they think they are right about. The statement that Bush made is blatantly false. The inspectors were let in and the only reason they left was Bush himself. Let them spin themselves into the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 So if they didnt destroy them, where are they? Are you also denying that we found a centrifuge? And we found traces of chemicals in the rivers, but the left claims that it's left from the 80s. riiiiiiight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 The inspectors were let in and the only reason they left was Bush himself. What world do you people live in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Earth. Stop by sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Is it a pretty place where all of you wet dreams come true? Thanks, but I live in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 The real world where Saddam didn't let the inspectors in? You actually think Saddam didn't let the inspectors in? Unbelievable. You should of taken the red pill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Try and follow along for once. The inspectors were kicked out by Saddam. He consistantly denied them access to sites. There are literally HUNDREDS of articles confirming this. Some have been posted here. But in typical leftist fashion, you either A-refuse to read them or B-think they are part of a conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 After a little research: Centrifuge = real. However, it was part of a project not used since 1991. There are some doubts the actual centrifuge would work now. However, it would facilitate building another. Fine. Were inspectors ever denied acces to the back yard? Nope. THat's the point I've been making. I said they didn't volunteer info. That's different from what Bush said, and what many on here are saying. As for inspectors leaving: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml They left because Kofi Annan told them too when the US said we were going to attack within 48 hours. The left becasue we were about to start bombing not because Sadam or Iraq asked them to. Which publication would you believe to verify this. USA today headline; March 17, 2003: U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 More revisionist history. We were going to bomb them BECAUSE Saddam was denying them access to EVERYTHING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Kilmer, you still say that right in the face of every quote from an inspecter saying they were never denied access to anywhere. And then you talk about revisionist history. Odd? Do you still deny that they left because of our planned bombing not Saddam forcing them out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 gbear, that is not why they left. They left because Saddam would not allow them to inspect anything. As a result, Clinton threatened to bomb them. The UN pulled them back for safety. But I guess thats the difference between the 2 sides. One side sees it as Saddams fault for not letting them do their job. The Liberals see it as the US bombing them for no reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 The inspectors were kicked out by Saddam. He consistantly denied them access to sites. There are literally HUNDREDS of articles confirming this. Some have been posted here. But in typical leftist fashion, you either A-refuse to read them or B-think they are part of a conspiracy. :laugh: This is really simple. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." Please post your hundreds of articles saying Saddam didn't let weapons inspectors in prior to this war. I'll wait. And they left (which would of been very hard to do had they not been let in) so they wouldn't get "blowed up". Because Bush said they had no more time. edit:spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.