You ignoring your own government’s reports??? 
Thats a big blow to GWB. (G-B). They were “al-samoud” or whatever US is claiming now.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Just look in the incubators. Move the dead babies aside and you will find the Scud pieces.
Love, MV
[/QUOTE]
Tell you what we can count the dead civilians in Iraq and Kuwait at the end of this jamboree. You take the Iraqi’s, my mental arithmetic never was that good. Hey maybe we can invite impartial Bob (Ariel Sharon) to adjudicate, the man’s got a history of civilian massacres and would be ideal.
Ever lovin' Thap
Nadia, you are contradicting yourself left and right. Sure, Iraq will defend itself, but if it is with weapons you have claimed have been destroyed during their coooperation and disarmament process, how is it they have these weapons?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Nadia, you are contradicting yourself left and right. Sure, Iraq will defend itself, but if it is with weapons you have claimed have been destroyed during their coooperation and disarmament process, how is it they have these weapons?
[/QUOTE]
I think US already "corrected" the info. It wasn't "scud", it was some Iraqi missile (al-samoud may be).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Nadia, you are contradicting yourself left and right. Sure, Iraq will defend itself, but if it is with weapons you have claimed have been destroyed during their coooperation and disarmament process, how is it they have these weapons?
[/QUOTE]
Seminole, i think it is the US government that has been "contradicting" itself "left and right" - first when it attempted to pressure the Security Council to accept its claim of Iraqi non-compliance vis-a-vis inspections. When Bush and his cowboys discovered that coercing and bullying the world just wasn't going to give them what they wanted, they decided to bypass the United Nations entirely claiming that - hey, all along they did have authorization for military action (under 1441). When no link between Iraq and al Qaeda was established, they refused to acknowledge the obvious and stuck to their recycled, worn-out claims that bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are best buddies. When "evidence" of Iraq's WMD was demanded by the world, Powell presented reports that were copied-'n-pasted from some 25 year old graduate student. Yet again i marvel at the superb display of logic.
Nadia, thank you. I'm well aware of your talking points. But you didn't address this point you made which I question: Iraq has every right to defend itself as a sovereign nation under attack.
Where did these Scud missles come from if they have been cooperating and disarming? Iraq's posession of Scud missles and Iraq disarming are mutually exclusive.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Nadia, thank you. I'm well aware of your talking points. But you didn't address this point you made which I question: Iraq has every right to defend itself as a sovereign nation under attack.
Where did these Scud missles come from if they have been cooperating and disarming? Iraq's posession of Scud missles and Iraq disarming are mutually exclusive.
[/QUOTE]
Can you please provide link to the news which said that Iraq did fire scud missiles? Also did anyone nullify this claim?
Where did these Scud missles come from if they have been cooperating and disarming?
Seminole, if it was proven that these were indeed Scud missiles, then i really do not understand what the problem is here. According to paragraph 14 of Resolution 687, which i have frequently mentioned in this Forum (much to the delight everyone derives from completely ignoring my comment), the process of disarming Iraq is supposed to occur under the the “context” of a Middle Eastern zone free of all weapons of mass destruction. hm 
Now i wonder which Middle Eastern country/ies still possess WMD ? Funny how it is more interesting to be obsessed with one or two Scud missiles that Iraq MAY have fired (under self-defence) but to ignore the fact that no other Middle Eastern country is being expected to disarm for the past 13 years since 687 was adopted. Forget about the fact that Hans Blix himself stated that Iraq’s disarmament could have been completed within months, not years; if you want to see all of Iraq’s Scud missiles destroyed, you should have opposed this invasion. For the second time, it is the actions of the US, not Iraq, that have led UNMOVIC weapons inspectors to leave Iraq and drop all of the disarmament tasks they were in the process of undertaking. Funny how Iraq’s disarmament might even have been finished within several months had UNMOVIC been allowed to fully implement its tasks within a reasonable time period. Too bad that Dubya already had all those troops amassed months ago, and the full moon was out this week, and had taken the decision to invade Iraq regardless of weapons inspectors being allowed to fulfil their UNSC-mandated disarmament tasks.
Nadia:
How easily you seem to ignore the fact that Iraq falsely claimed in its arms declaration to the UN that it had no scuds.
MyVoice, Funny how you are so fond of selectively quoting parts of arms reports that you wish to - how about we read other parts of Dr. Blix's report? Or maybe the IAEA? Both of which have stated that Iraq was showing some, albeit far from perfect, signs of cooperation. How about we quote the IAEA claim that US allegations of Iraq attempting to acquire uranium, were false and misleading?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
MyVoice, Funny how you are so fond of selectively quoting parts of arms reports that you wish to - how about we read other parts of Dr. Blix's report? Or maybe the IAEA? Both of which have stated that Iraq was showing some, albeit far from perfect, signs of cooperation. How about we quote the IAEA claim that US allegations of Iraq attempting to acquire uranium, were false and misleading?
[/QUOTE]
1441 did not ask Iraq to show some signs of cooperation. It required disarmament. 1441 did not say that Iraq had 4 free lies to make in its arms declaration. Please tell me one country on earth (besides Syria) that said Iraq complied with 1441. Please find me one quote from Hansey that Iraq was in compliance with 1441.
Now we are debating 1441 - fine. Please quote me the statement from 1441 that explicitly authorizes military action against Iraq. Precise statement as a quote would be preferred. Thank you in advance.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Now we are debating 1441 - fine. Please quote me the statement from 1441 that explicitly authorizes military action against Iraq. Precise statement as a quote would be preferred. Thank you in advance.
[/QUOTE]
It doesn't. But if you turn on the TV you will see that such an explicit authorization wasn't necessary for military action against Iraq to occur.
It doesn't.
Glad to know you have just acknowledged that the US is acting against the principles of international law and that the invasion has taken place outside of the jurisdiction of the UN Charter. Therefore, making some parties responsible for committing a crime, to state it rather mildly.
Bush’s war against Iraq is ILLEGAL, this view is held by many nations except Bush’s so called allies, some of which depend highly on US handouts.
Chirac damns war as illegal without UN stamp](http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s813313.htm) ABC Australia 22 Mar 03
French President Jacques Chirac says the United States and Britain have breached international law by declaring war on Iraq without a UN mandate. The two countries had “breached international legality”, Chirac said at the end of an European Union summit overshadowed by the Iraq crisis, which has sparked unprecedented rifts in the 15-member bloc. France and Germany remain in outspoken opposition to the war.
Defence integration
As the EU division widened, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt announced plans for France, Germany and Belgium to meet next month to discuss integrating their armed forces. The moves plunged the EU back into crisis hours after the 15 leaders had papered over their splits with a statement pledging support for UN humanitarian relief efforts and urging Iraq’s neighbours not to make mischief.
Britain, which has committed 45,000 troops to the US-led Iraq campaign, accuses France, leader of the anti-war camp, of scuppering diplomacy by threatening to veto any UN Security Council resolution on military enforcement of disarmament. Asked whether he regretted attacks on Paris that drew an angry protest from his French counterpart, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: “I stand by the words I have used”. “I don’t regret the fact that we have argued, that we disagree with the French position, because we do.”
Muscling up to UK, US
The defence initiative apparently is designed to isolate Britain, Europe’s biggest military power. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, looking tired and drawn after Britain suffered its first casualties of the war in a helicopter crash, shook hands and accepted consolation from German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, another vocal opponent of military action, at the start of the second day of the summit.
French President Jacques Chirac entered the room only after cameras had been ushered out, avoiding being photographed with Mr Blair. Mr Verhofstadt told the Belgian news agency, Belga: “In April Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, President Jacques Chirac and I will meet in Brussels to discuss a stronger integration of our respective forces.” His Foreign Minister, Louis Michel, said closer defence integration is the only way for Europe to be taken seriously as an entity by the US.
Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker applauded the initiative, telling reporters: “This is not a closed shop. I expect others would join. It’s the logical consequence of the differences of recent weeks.” A British official said London would look at the proposal if and when it materialised “but frankly this is not the story”.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
*It doesn't.
Glad to know you have just acknowledged that the US is acting against the principles of international law and that the invasion has taken place outside of the jurisdiction of the UN Charter. Therefore, making some parties responsible for committing a crime, to state it rather mildly.
[/QUOTE]
You seem to be under the terribly mistaken impression that unless 1441 "explicitly" authorized military action that the US was violating principles of international law and that the invasion is outside the jurisdiction of the UN Charter. From where did you derive that notion?
"Seminole, if it was proven that these were indeed Scud missiles, then i really do not understand what the problem is here. According to paragraph 14 of Resolution 687, which i have frequently mentioned in this Forum (much to the delight everyone derives from completely ignoring my comment), the process of disarming Iraq is supposed to occur under the the “context” of a Middle Eastern zone free of all weapons of mass destruction. "
First you state emphatically that Hussein has been disarming. Then you say even if he hasn’t he is excused for it out of self defense and Israel’s posession of WMD. 
But if he hasn’t disarmed, then it is ok because one sentence in one Resolution states that Iraq’s disarmament represents steps in the goal of ridding the ME in particular, and eventually the world, of chemical weapons.
The cause and effect of Iraq’s 1991 surrender had nothing to do with WMD in Israel or anywhere else. That paragraph states that it is the long term goal of a global ban on all chemical weapons. But 687’s expressed intent (and that of over a dozen subsequent resolutions) was the disarmament of Iraq.
This thread addresses the simple question: Is Iraq disarming? If after 12 years he is still destroying banned weapons, then the obvious answer is no. 12 years is 11 1/2 years longer than it should have taken.
Seminole, i think you read 687 did you not? (Because you specifically mentioned the global ban on CW which most individuals do not know about unless they have perused through the Resolution). Anyways, if you did - then i am glad you did so.
It is discomforting that you have (appeared to) brush aside para XIV of 687 in such a dismissing manner ("...one sentence in one Resolution..."). Actually, there is a reason that this is paragraph fourteen - after listing the various disarmament steps that Iraq had to undertake in previous paragraphs 8-13, the Resolution states in para XIV that:
...the actions to be taken by Iraq in paragraphs 8 to 13 represent steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction...
The way i interpret the above, particularly the part that i have highlighted in bold, is that Iraq's process of disarmament must occur within an ultimate goal of ridding the ME of WMD. Is this interpretation correct in your opinion?
It's sad, for myself personally, that this is dismissed so effortlessly - surely this is not an insignificant objective to achieve ?
Is Iraq disarming?
Sadly, it depends who you ask.
Who determines who gets to answer this question - the UN Security Council (multilaterally), or the US (unilaterally)?
It does not imply that it must occur, but that is in the big, overall plan. You have to start somewhere. It does not mention a quid-pro-quo. Israel's WMD have nothing to do with Hussein's reasons for holding on to his.
Paragraph 14 does not state that Iraq is allowed banned weapons if other countries do not disarm simoultaneously.