OT: Smoking Gun?

[CamEdwards]

No evidence of WMD's in Iraq?

Chemical Tipped Missiles Found (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20030407/ts_nm/iraq_usa_cache_dc)

Rabid warmongereres NPR (National Public Radio) is reporting the discovery of 20 missiles tipped with sarin and mustard gas. The missiles were found near Baghdad, "ready to fire".

This is in addition to the following discovery:

U.S. Investigates Nerve Agent Find (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392.asp?cp1=1)

Blister and nerve agents found in an agricultural facility. They were in a pit camouflaged with leaves. 11 25-gallon barrels and 3 55-gallon barrels were found.

Golly, I guess Iraq hadn't disarmed after all.

[User #2735]

Don't be brainwashed....It's obvious that the U.S. has planted everything /sarcasm

[Bee]

While it doesn't really change the arguments made by most of the antiwar folks, I'm really glad to see we found something. Otherwise, we'd have looked like complete idiots.

[CamEdwards]

where the hell is the "biting my tongue" graemlin???????? :)

[stkelly52]

It is still to early to know that this is true. How many reports have come out that later proved to be totally false?

[Ksyrup]

Nothing as specific, frankly. The original reports were of white powder that had yet been tested, and reports of that type. This is actual weapons with clear vials containing substances that have at least been field-tested and confirmed positive.

[GrantDawg]

Confirmation of this report is being spread around, but Centcom still hasn't confirmed.

[Dutch]

I was/am hoping that evidence like this would not be produced until after Saddam Hussein and his government are firmly contained so as to not give them a reason to say, "Oh, what the hell....fire at will."

In my mind this is not a question of confirmation, but when to confirm it. There are a lot of soldiers over their that are being put in danger by the admittance of any such evidence at this point and time.

[RonnieDobbs]

Looks pretty legit... big headline under Breaking News at cnn.com:

Material found at paramilitary camp in Hindiyah, Iraq, tests positive for chemical-warfare agents in preliminary testing, Pentagon sources tell CNN. Samples being flown to U.S. for confirmation. Details soon.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Dutch
I was/am hoping that evidence like this would not be produced until after Saddam Hussein and his government are firmly contained so as to not give them a reason to say, "Oh, what the hell....fire at will."

In my mind this is not a question of confirmation, but when to confirm it. There are a lot of soldiers over their that are being put in danger by the admittance of any such evidence at this point and time. Dutch, that is an EXCELLENT point. I'll admit I hadn't thought about that at all. IF they still have the ability to do so, this confirmation pretty much removes one of the biggest reasons they wouldn't use them.

[Bee]

At this point the Iraqis couldn't even throw up a road block when we drove into downtown Baghdad, I seriously doubt they are organized enough to use chemical weapons without killing a lot more of their soldiers than ours.

[SackAttack]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131713.asp

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is reporting that not only were suspected chemical weapons found, there were reactions among troops and journalists consistent with low-level exposure to sarin.

Smoking gun, indeed.

[SackAttack]

Dola -

Bee, why doesn't the presence of the proscribed weapons change the arguments of the anti-war folk? Not looking for a fight here, I'm just honestly curious as to how something they could be willing to overlook something that powerful.

Josh

[MJ4H]

SIGH

NEAR NAJAF, Iraq (AFP) - A facility near Baghdad that a US officer had said might finally be "smoking gun" evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons production turned out to contain pesticide, not sarin gas as feared.

[RonnieDobbs]

SA - don't want to speak for Bee here, but he did a good job of summing up his position here (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7123&highlight=saddam) .

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by MattJones4Heisman
SIGH

NEAR NAJAF, Iraq (AFP) - A facility near Baghdad that a US officer had said might finally be "smoking gun" evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons production turned out to contain pesticide, not sarin gas as feared.

That is a different site.

[MJ4H]

Ugh. Yahoo's News headlines removed the Possible Smoking Gun headline and replaced it with that story :( Grrrr

[Bee]

Originally posted by SackAttack
Dola -

Bee, why doesn't the presence of the proscribed weapons change the arguments of the anti-war folk? Not looking for a fight here, I'm just honestly curious as to how something they could be willing to overlook something that powerful.

Josh

I was careful to use most anti-war folk. There were a few that didn't think Iraq had WMDs, but I think they were definitely the minority. Most of the arguments I've seen revolved around the necessity of war to disarm Iraq, not the fact that Iraq didn't have WMDs.

To be completely honest, if anything I think this war to date has strengthened the argument of the anti-war crowd. Despite a military invading Iraq and it taking 3 weeks to get into Baghdad, Iraq has not used WMDs. There have been chances to use it. They appear to have had it. But they have been unable to use it even in Iraq. To me, that doesn't sound like they were on the verge of using their WMDs against us or our allies. This was supposed to be a pre-emptive strike, but I really don't see what we were pre-empting.

[Bee]

Originally posted by RonnieDobbs
SA - don't want to speak for Bee here, but he did a good job of summing up his position here (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7123&highlight=saddam) .

Thanks, that saves me time trying to explain my position all over again. :)

[Dutch]

This was supposed to be a pre-emptive strike, but I really don't see what we were pre-empting.

On an interesting side note,

Amnesty International's web site is no longer reporting the possible death of 200,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 since 1991 as a result of sanctions.

They are now reporting the hundreds if not thousands that are suffering due to the conflict.

Basically, we will always see what we want to see.

[Bee]

Amnesty International updates it's website pretty often. Right now I see one of their headlines concerns our "ally" Turkey where where there seems to be a large number of reports of women sexually tortured while in police custody. I wonder what the US government will do about that (other than send Turkey money for use of their airspace)?

[Bonegavel]

The smartest thing that Sadaam could have done was rid his country entirely of WMDs in the weeks leading up to the deadline. Sending them all to syria or wherever so that when we came in, we would find zip.

Seems to me that Sadaam under-estimated Bush. Probably thought that he wouldn't dare follow up on his word. Oops. Thankfully, these meglomaniacs (hitler and co.) are missing a few too many screws.

[Bee]

The smartest thing he could have done was comply initially to the UN resolutions. :D

I think with all the surveillance we have in the area if he had tried to move all the WMDs to another country we'd have intercepted the bulk of them.

I do think he underestimated Bush's desire to remove him and he probably overestimated the Russian and French abilities to stop Bush from acting.

[Franklinnoble]

I think Saddam should have spent more time watching American satellite news broadcasts and planned more accordingly. If he thought he was going to realistically be able to repel the American and British advance, he's either poorly advised or just incredibly delusional. His best time to use the chemical weapons would have been while US troops were queued up at the Kuwaiti border just prior to the invasion - increasing his odds of actually hitting something, stalling the advance, and keeping his own guys healthy at the same time.

That said, it probably would have slowed things down by maybe a week or two.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Bee
The smartest thing he could have done was comply initially to the UN resolutions. :D

Nice.

I should have prefaced my comment with, "given that he won't ever comply with the UN resolutions..."


I think with all the surveillance we have in the area if he had tried to move all the WMDs to another country we'd have intercepted the bulk of them.

I heard tell of truckloads of stuff going to Syria. Unconfirmed, of course.

I do think he underestimated Bush's desire to remove him and he probably overestimated the Russian and French abilities to stop Bush from acting.

agreed.

[CamEdwards]

Just so you know, the AFP (a French news agency, btw) is the only agency reporting that the chemicals are pesticide. Everybody else is waiting for the tests to come back. It's entirely possible that there were pesticides contaminating the samples (it was found in an agricultural complex). Of course, it's also possible that the drums were simply pesticide.

Still doesn't explain the chemical tipped missiles though, unless that's the Iraqi method of cropdusting.

[astralhaze]

Maybe so, maybe no, anything is possible. I'm in the wait and see camp myself.

[Airhog]

I am also in the wait and see camp. Even if they do confirm this as being true, its still very little WMD. The reports before the war was hussien was supposed to have produced tons of some of those chemicals. I would hate to think we went to war over 20 missiles and a few hundred gallons of chemicals...

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Airhog
I am also in the wait and see camp. Even if they do confirm this as being true, its still very little WMD. The reports before the war was hussien was supposed to have produced tons of some of those chemicals. I would hate to think we went to war over 20 missiles and a few hundred gallons of chemicals...
and a few hundred thousand dead Iraqis.

Tarkus

[Fritz]

Airhog,

What quantity would be enough?

[Bonegavel]

Be patient all you non-believers. The desert is a big place and Chipmunk Hussein had plenty of time to hide the stuff. After we settle things down, there will be plenty of time to play Hide-n-go-Chem weapons.

And, like Fritz was alluding to, even if we only find 1 weapon that is in violation, that is still a violation.

[MJ4H]

Originally posted by Airhog
I am also in the wait and see camp. Even if they do confirm this as being true, its still very little WMD. The reports before the war was hussien was supposed to have produced tons of some of those chemicals. I would hate to think we went to war over 20 missiles and a few hundred gallons of chemicals...

Thats the great thing about WMD. It doesnt take much to kill a lot of people.

[NoMyths]

Fritz: 17 ml.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by NoMyths
Fritz: 17 ml.

I am sure the Allies will find 17 mighty llamas, if not more. What does that have to do with anything? Was there a mighty llama issue that I was not aware of?

[Fritz]

doal,

I am not hitting Airhog with a zero tollerance argument. I am genuinely interested in how much/many we would need to find.

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by Fritz
I am sure the Allies will find 17 mighty llamas, if not more. What does that have to do with anything? Was there a mighty llama issue that I was not aware of?
It's how much sarin I extracted from the collosal squid.

[ice4277]

Why do I have a feeling that Lobsterboy had something to do with this?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by NoMyths
It's how much sarin I extracted from the collosal squid.

Is that something like the colossal squid? Are you attacking squidkind?

Some day you might need a favor from the Colossal Squid! Then where'll you be?!

[Fritz]

Originally posted by ice4277
Why do I have a feeling that Lobsterboy had something to do with this?

Lobsterboy is an angry man.

[Airhog]

Originally posted by Fritz
Airhog,

What quantity would be enough?


Hmm, thats a tought question. Im not real sure how much mustard gas or sarin would be required to kill the population of a small town. Also, the reports Ive read said it might not be pure gas, but a mixture. They also werent sure if it was weapons grade material.


I would have to say 50+ warheads containing sarin or something as deadly as sarin.

As far as the concentrates go. I would have to say 5+ barrels of sarin would probably be enough. And this would have to be pure sarin, the kind that can be used in a warhead


However, Im not sure if one should be able to set a rigid limit. he shouldnt of had any of course, but how much would be needed to do serious damage? I know far to little to make an educated guess about this. Maybe someone can shed some light on how much sarin would be needed to wipe out a populated area of say
1sq mile.

[couriers]

Originally posted by Airhog
Hmm, thats a tought question. Im not real sure how much mustard gas or sarin would be required to kill the population of a small town. Also, the reports Ive read said it might not be pure gas, but a mixture. They also werent sure if it was weapons grade material.


I would have to say 50+ warheads containing sarin or something as deadly as sarin.

As far as the concentrates go. I would have to say 5+ barrels of sarin would probably be enough. And this would have to be pure sarin, the kind that can be used in a warhead


However, Im not sure if one should be able to set a rigid limit. he shouldnt of had any of course, but how much would be needed to do serious damage? I know far to little to make an educated guess about this. Maybe someone can shed some light on how much sarin would be needed to wipe out a populated area of say
1sq mile.

It is quite simple. The UN resolutions state that he is not allowed to have any what so ever. He has claimed that he doesn't have any what so ever. So why would you even allow for a little bit to be acceptable? Isn't enough measured by the ability to kill just one person? If our laws say that a felon cannot have any guns and we find out that a felon does in fact have a gun should we allow it to slide?

[CamEdwards]

the answer is yes, as long as it's a tiny gun.

[couriers]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
the answer is yes, as long as it's a tiny gun.

With only enough bullits to kill only one person right?

[Bee]

Originally posted by couriers
It is quite simple. The UN resolutions state that he is not allowed to have any what so ever. He has claimed that he doesn't have any what so ever. So why would you even allow for a little bit to be expectable? Isn't enough measured by the ability to kill just one person? If our laws say that a felon cannot have any guns and we find out that a felon does in fact have a gun should we allow it to slide?

No but we generally don't kill him and his entire family because he is caught with a weapon.

[couriers]

Originally posted by Bee
No but we generally don't kill him and his entire family because he is caught with a weapon.

We would if he held up in their household with weapons and refused to surrender after being given countless opportunities to either get rid of the gun or to turn himself in.

[Airhog]

Originally posted by couriers
It is quite simple. The UN resolutions state that he is not allowed to have any what so ever. He has claimed that he doesn't have any what so ever. So why would you even allow for a little bit to be acceptable? Isn't enough measured by the ability to kill just one person? If our laws say that a felon cannot have any guns and we find out that a felon does in fact have a gun should we allow it to slide?

I think that your taking what I said out of context. Im not talking about the resolution, what im talking is about is justification of declaring war on Iraq over what? some pesticide and a few missles? My comments had no bearing on what the UN had passed. I was simply asking how much chemical weapons it would take to destroy a sizable population.

How will the US look if they infact find only a few chemical weapons? I think it would take more than 25 missles to convince people that this war was in fact needed.

Does the end justify the mean? We have killed 1000's of Iraqi soldiers and 100's of civilians. Does that cost of life justify us findiing a few WMD? not IMHO

[astralhaze]

I continue to find the defying the U.N. argument to be hilarious. Iraq has been defying U.N. resolutions so we punish them by.....defying the U.N. Makes sense, right?

[CAsterling]

Originally posted by Tarkus
and a few hundred thousand dead Iraqis.

Tarkus

Sorry, tried really hard to let this one go, but just can't.

When was this conflict ever about the Iraqis that Saddam's regieme had already killed - it has never been about this, but this angle plays well for PR now.

[Bee]

Originally posted by couriers
We would if he held up in their household with weapons and refused to surrender after being given countless opportunities to either get rid of the gun or to turn himself in.

I'd hate to have police like that in my neighborhood. Be in possession of a firearm and they blow up your house? :D

[couriers]

Originally posted by Airhog
How will the US look if they infact find only a few chemical weapons? I think it would take more than 25 missles to convince people that this war was in fact needed.

Considering recent polls the majority of Americans feel that the war is justified regardless of WMD. Considering Israel is within range of Iraq's missiles I think you would be hard pressed to convince them that this war was not justified over 25 missiles. Besides, he claimed to not have any at all. If zero actually equals 25 then 25 would soon equal 100 and so on and so on if he was left to his own accord.

[couriers]

Originally posted by Bee
I'd hate to have police like that in my neighborhood. Be in possession of a firearm and they blow up your house? :D

:)

What I meant was if he barricaded himself in the house similar to a hostage situation. Many people believe that this is exactly what Saddam Insane has done.

[Bee]

I think as long as there are some WMDs found, there won't be any backlash. If it turns out this is actually pesticide and we don't find anything concrete it's going to look very bad for us internationally. I also would think Bush's support would take a nose dive. I don't expect that to happen though because I'd be shocked if Saddam doesn't have WMDs stuffed away someplace.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by CAsterling
Sorry, tried really hard to let this one go, but just can't.

When was this conflict ever about the Iraqis that Saddam's regieme had already killed - it has never been about this, but this angle plays well for PR now.
Well, it is called Operation Iraqi Freedom. I'd say freedom from persecution that had killed hundreds of thousands in the past, and was continuing to kill in the present would be part of the motivation. Of course, I could be mistaken here.

Tarkus

[Bee]

Originally posted by couriers
:)

What I meant was if he barricaded himself in the house similar to a hostage situation. Many people believe that this is exactly what Saddam Insane has done.

What if the negotiator is still on the phone with him and he's slowly turning over some of his weapons? Do the police get impatient and rush the house, guns blazing? Even when the FBI is still wanting to negotiate? ;)

These things are silly since we can go back and forth forever. I think I understand your side and if you've read my post linked above, you probably understand mine.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by astralhaze
I continue to find the defying the U.N. argument to be hilarious. Iraq has been defying U.N. resolutions so we punish them by.....defying the U.N. Makes sense, right?

God you are so right. The most brutal dick-taster of this century, perhaps longer, is in violation of the UN just like us. Wow. I can't believe you helped me see the light. I thought only Bush was in violation. That darned Sadaam.

[couriers]

Originally posted by Bee
What if the negotiator is still on the phone with him and he's slowly turning over some of his weapons? Do the police get impatient and rush the house, guns blazing? Even when the FBI is still wanting to negotiate? ;)

These things are silly since we can go back and forth forever. I think I understand your side and if you've read my post linked above, you probably understand mine.

I know where you are coming from Bee since you and I think very much alike on many issues, as I have pointed out in the past. I was just making sure everyone else understands the issues.

BTW, if the criminal was handing over weapons that would acceptable. In this case, I personally believe that Saddam has more than he was willing to admit to, therefore he wouldn't have ever handed them all over. In that case the negotiations would have to end and action would need to take place. I hope just like you that they do in fact find the smoking gun because that would be the end all for a lot of second guessers. Furthermore I believe that we will in time find exactly what we expect to.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
God you are so right. The most brutal dick-taster of this century, perhaps longer, is in violation of the UN just like us. Wow. I can't believe you helped me see the light. I thought only Bush was in violation. That darned Sadaam.

Saddam is the most brutal dictator of the past century? Come on.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by astralhaze
I continue to find the defying the U.N. argument to be hilarious. Iraq has been defying U.N. resolutions so we punish them by.....defying the U.N. Makes sense, right?

how again did we defy them? You keep saying that, and you're wrong each time. Please clue us in if something has changed.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Fritz
how again did we defy them? You keep saying that, and you wrong each time. Please clue us in if something has changed.

The U.S. tabled the security council resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq because it was obvious they would not have had the votes for it to pass and France and likely Russia would have vetoed it even if they did have the votes. I would call that defying the U.N., yes.

[couriers]

Originally posted by astralhaze
The U.S. tabled the security council resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq because it was obvious they would not have had the votes for it to pass and France and likely Russia would have vetoed it even if they did have the votes. I would call that defying the U.N., yes.

NO

[couriers]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Saddam is the most brutal dictator of the past century? Come on.

He said "dick-taster" not "dictator"

I would tend to agree with him on this one.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by couriers
NO

So then the U.N. was in favor of the action?

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by couriers
He said "dick-taster" not "dictator"

I would tend to agree with him on this one.

How does one determine who is a brutal dick-taster and who is a dick-taster, but not a brutal one?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by astralhaze
The U.S. tabled the security council resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq because it was obvious they would not have had the votes for it to pass and France and likely Russia would have vetoed it even if they did have the votes. I would call that defying the U.N., yes.

You can not defy a non-action. Has the SC passed a resolution asking us to stop? No.

There is no language in the Charter requiring preapproval for military action. We have done it in the past to gain international support, but this is not a widespread practice. The language in the charter empowers the SC to review actions and (by resolution) to provide a remedy if one is needed.

[couriers]

Originally posted by astralhaze
How does one determine who is a brutal dick-taster and who is a dick-taster, but not a brutal one?

By the way the look at you when they are...ok I drop this now.

[couriers]

Originally posted by Fritz
You can not defy a non-action. Has the SC passed a resolution asking us to stop? No.

There is no language in the Charter requiring preapproval for military action. We have done it in the past to gain international support, but this is not a widespread practice. The language in the charter empowers the SC to review actions and (by resolution) to provide a remedy if one is needed.

PLEASE for the love of God, stop using logic.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Fritz
You can not defy a non-action. Has the SC passed a resolution asking us to stop? No.

There is no language in the Charter requiring preapproval for military action. We have done it in the past to gain international support, but this is not a widespread practice. The language in the charter empowers the SC to review actions and (by resolution) to provide a remedy if one is needed.

I didn't say we were in defiance of a resolution, but we are defying the clear will of the security council. Care to dispute that?

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by couriers
PLEASE for the love of God, stop using logic.

We are all using logic. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean that the other one is not using logic or is not intelligent. Why does crap like this always have to be brought up?

[couriers]

Originally posted by astralhaze
We are all using logic. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean that the other one is not using logic or is not intelligent. Why does crap like this always have to be brought up?

First of all, I said absolutely nothing about you in regards to using logic or not. My remark was in reference to Fritz always jumping in with one liners as a humor tactic and had nothing to do with you.

Secondly, misunderstanding the facts and then using that misinformation to form a basis for an argument is not using logic. Period.

If you don’t understand how things are working then just say so but to continue to insist your opinion has merit based on misinformation is just not the right thing to do.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by couriers
First of all, I said absolutely nothing about you in regards to using logic or not. My remark was in reference to Fritz always jumping in with one liners as a humor tactic and had nothing to do with you.

Secondly, misunderstanding the facts and then using that misinformation to form a basis for an argument is not using logic. Period.

If you don’t understand how things are working then just say so but to continue to insist your opinion has merit based on misinformation is just not the right thing to do.

Please point out my misunderstating based on the facts where I later insisted my opinion had merit based on that same misinformation. Enlighten me.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by astralhaze
I didn't say we were in defiance of a resolution, but we are defying the clear will of the security council. Care to dispute that?

The security council demonstrates its will by passing a resolution. It does not operate on a simple majority. No resolution, no will.

[couriers]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Please point out my misunderstating based on the facts where I later insisted my opinion had merit based on that same misinformation. Enlighten me.

Fritz just did.

Thanks for accusing me of bringing crap into the discussion thought. Just another one of your misunderstandings.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Fritz
The security council demonstrates its will by passing a resolution. It does not operate on a simple majority. No resolution, no will.

You know very well what I mean. I'm not talking about resolutions, I am talking about what the majority of the U.N. wanted and you know as well as I what that was.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by couriers
Fritz just did.

Thanks for accusing me of bringing crap into the discussion thought. Just another one of your misunderstandings.

Except I'm not talking about resolutions so no, he didn't. Sorry if I missunderstood you, but surely you can see how it would be taken the way it was. No big deal.

[CamEdwards]

I think what Fritz has been trying to point out is that if there really is a "will of the Security Council" against this war, why have no resolutions been passed condemning it? In fact, the only country that has offered a resolution condemning the attack has been Iraq.

[astralhaze]

The U.S. would surely veto any resolution against it. So, yes, legaly and strictly speaking there is no resolution against it and it has not been condemned by the security council.

However, what I have been trying to point out is that the security council and the general assembly are both against this war and has been from the get go. I would say that the will of the U.N., seperate from resolutions mind you, is against this war.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by astralhaze
I didn't say we were in defiance of a resolution, but we are defying the clear will of the security council. Care to dispute that?

If the UN is so great, why is everyone breaking its rules all the time? How many times did france do shit when the UN said no? They didn't stop Sadaam from entering Kuwait. They did nothing as Rawandan's were slaughtered in unspeakable numbers. This time, we had a piece of paper that TOLD SADAAM TO DISARM. The UN did nothing.

The UN is broken and shouldn't be fixed. We don't need a UN to get along Britain (oh yeah, a war fixed that). We don't need the UN to get along with Kuwait (oh yeah, a war fixed that). We don't need a UN to get along with Russia (oh yeah, threat of extinction fixed that). Agressive use of force rules the world. As unfortunate as that may be, it is a fact. Thank God our country is the best at it.

Imagine if Sadaam possesed the power that we have. We wouldn't be sitting on our asses in our comfortable homes, typing out our own opinions to others doing the same. Sometimes war is needed.

[need a smoke, i'll be back to follow up]

[astralhaze]

Ok, let's assume that the U.N. is irrelevant and broken and it's resolutions have no force. Then drop the whole U.N. angle. Why use the U.N. resolutions as justification for a war when the U.N. clearly didn't intend that? Why try to get the approval of the U.N. and only stop the effort when it became clear that the resolution would have been voted down?

[couriers]

Originally posted by astralhaze
The U.S. would surely veto any resolution against it. So, yes, legaly and strictly speaking there is no resolution against it and it has not been condemned by the security council.

However, what I have been trying to point out is that the security council and the general assembly are both against this war and has been from the get go. I would say that the will of the U.N., seperate from resolutions mind you, is against this war.

So you know for a fact how the Security Council members would have voted for certain? Would you care to share your source of information on this with the rest of us because I seemed to have missed this fact somewhere along the line?

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by couriers
So you know for a fact how the Security Council members would have voted for certain? Would you care to share your source of information on this with the rest of us because I seemed to have missed this fact somewhere along the line?

I read the newspaper. The resolution introduced by Britain authorizing the use of force was tabled because 8 of the security council countries were going to vote against it and 2 of them were planning on vetoing. This is information you surely know. Do I know for a fact that they wouldn't have voted for it? No, of course not. But considering the U.S. and Britain tabled the resolution rather than face a vote, I think they figured it wasn't going to pass as well.

[couriers]

Originally posted by astralhaze
I read the newspaper. The resolution introduced by Britain authorizing the use of force was tabled because 8 of the security council countries were going to vote against it and 2 of them were planning on vetoing. This is information you surely know. Do I know for a fact that they wouldn't have voted for it? No, of course not. But considering the U.S. and Britain tabled the resolution rather than face a vote, I think they figured it wasn't going to pass as well.

I read the papers as well and nowhere have I ever seen any type of confirmation on how the members would have voted. The United States scraped the proposed resolution due to the threat of a veto from 2 members, which could have caused other members to vote against their true desires since it wouldn't have mattered in the end.

[astralhaze]

I don't remember where I read it or which countries it refered to as it has been a month, but it was 8 members voting no. France and Russia also were certain vetoes. At the time, I remember reading that the U.S. tabled it not because of the threat of veto, but because it looked like it would not even pass.

[couriers]

Astralhaze,

I believe that it is generally accepted that many of the countries did not state how they would have definitely voted and that since they believed that the resolution would be vetoed then it didn't make any difference. They didn't want to disclose how they would vote because they didn't want to strain relations with any country for a situation that they couldn't help control. Many also believe that if the threat of veto was not as strong as it was then the resolution would have in fact passed at the last moment. This of course is as easy for me to say as it is for you to say the opposite. Therefore, you cannot argue with certainty what the intent, will and desire is of the United Nations. The facts are that there is no resolution against the war action and any statement about the United Nation’s otherwise is completely personal opinion based on speculation and beliefs. This is where your “factual” based arguments just don’t hold water. Nothing personal, just calling it like I see it.

[astralhaze]

I disagree of course, but no personal offense was taken. We are just going to disagree and that's perfectly fine.

[SackAttack]

Mustard gas, cyanide found in Euphrates (http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/wpois06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixnewstop.html)

Nice guy. "Shit, they're coming, dump this crap in the river, nobody will care."