"So that is proof that they do have WOMD of some sort."

Post #90,552 by Brandioch 3/23/03 12:43:27 AM Reply	"So that is proof that they do have WOMD of some sort." I just went over this the other day with the OTHER fucking moron on this board. Now, because I'm not going to waste my time re-keying it, I'll just link to it. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=89769\|And here is that posting.]
Post #90,557 by orion 3/23/03 1:28:19 AM Reply	Part of the disarment agreement was to get rid of the SCUDs they obviously did not. Further proof that they did not follow the rules. The simple answer is that the US and UK have decided that Iraq had not disarmed voluntarily as it was required to do by United Nations resolutions and that it is, therefore, going to be disarmed by force. Getting rid of the SCUDs was part of the disarming process. Obviously they did not get rid of them. Which leads to further proof that Iraq did not follow the UN resolutions. Therefore, the war is legal. The British Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith has published his opinion that war is justified under Security Council resolutions. He says that the authority goes back to resolutions 678, which permitted war against Iraq over Kuwait and 687, which laid down terms for a ceasefire. These were reactivated by 1441 which warned of "serious consequences" if Iraq did not comply with instructions to disarm. Remember the Gulf War? Iraq agreed to disarm. They obviously did not. Hence 1441 reactivated 687, and we are back at war with Iraq again. Does it matter if Iraq has WOMD or not? Not really, the fact is they didn't disarm and violated resolution 678, hence the legal right to attack and disarm them. Over 40 countries agree with this course of action. Of course take a look at the weapons both sides have in the war: [link\|http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/weapons/index.html\|http://www.cnn.com/S...eapons/index.html] [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/world/2003/military_fact_files/default.stm\|http://news.bbc.co.u...files/default.stm] [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2462583.stm\|http://news.bbc.co.u..._east/2462583.stm] But according to the UK prime minister's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction: "Iraq possesses extended-range versions of the Scud ballistic missile in breach of UN Security Council resolution 687 which are capable of reaching Cyprus, Eastern Turkey, Tehran and Israel. It is also developing longer-range ballistic missiles." See the violation? See how clearly the fact got stated that these missiles violate resolution 678? What about that don't you understand? "Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?" -John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link\|http://www.farscape.com\|FarScape]
Post #90,562 by Brandioch 3/23/03 2:03:09 AM Reply	And Molly tore that apart already. [link\|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14694&CFID=6080478&CFTOKEN=77664199\|Here] The key word was "automaticity" -- that is, who decided if there was noncompliance. Now here's where the "legislative intent" is found: On the day the resolution was passed, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said to the Security Council: "There is not \ufffdautomaticity,' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken." Now that is perfectly clear. And that is why the other nations so bitterly feel had on this. No one likes people who deal in bad faith. Yes, I remember the first Gulf War. We had authority to push Iraq out of Kuwait. Iraq left Kuwait. There was a ceasefire. Under those terms, Iraq was to disarm. Now, you and Bush and others have claimed that Iraq did NOT disarm. You claimed that Iraq had nuke/chem/bio weapons. Yet there haven't been any found and none used. Does it matter if Iraq has WOMD or not? Not really, the fact is they didn't disarm and violated resolution 678, hence the legal right to attack and disarm them. Over 40 countries agree with this course of action. Yes, it DOES matter. Because if Iraq does NOT have nuke/chem/bio weapons then we are killing children over ROCKETS. Rockets that CANNOT reach the US. Therefore, Iraq is NOT a threat to the US. Yes, 40 countries agree with the US. Of course, 15 of those countries refuse to be named. And the resolution the US wanted to push through the UN couldn't get any votes other than US/UK/Spain. And even the press corps laughed when our current regime claimed not to be buying support. Children will die because of ROCKETS that cannot reach the US. We will spend over $100BILLION because of ROCKETS that cannot reach the US. We are cutting education budgets to help fund this war. #1. Iraq does NOT have "weapons of mass destruction". #2. Iraq is NOT a threat to the US. #3. The money we are spending on this war would be better spent on education in the US.
Post #90,570 by Ashton 3/23/03 3:45:05 AM Reply	If the $100B were spent on eduction.. You wouldn't have to explain such things.. (Hell, if the $100B HAD been spent on eduction - Aaahhh never mind..)
Post #90,628 by Brandioch 3/23/03 11:04:10 AM Reply	Exactly.

Welcome to IWETHEY!