Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
Old Feb 14th, 2003, 03:36 PM        Saddam issues decree banning WMD
Does it matter what they do or say anymore?
Is it just me or is this report being buried?
sure we can't trust Saddam but how much time should we give him to follow through on this?

the United States said it placed no value on the decree.

f*&king Great if Saddam means it(yea, i know theres a problem "knowing" what saddam means) and we go to war we will all know exactly why we are killing iraqis again.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ree/index.html


Saddam issues decree banning WMD
Friday, February 14, 2003 Posted: 2:10 PM EST (1910 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has issued a decree banning the importation and production of weapons of mass destruction.

While the decree bans individuals and companies from importing or producing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, it makes no mention of government or state-run entities. The Iraqi government insists it possesses no such weapons.

The order came a few hours before U.N. weapons inspectors reported to the Security Council on Iraq's compliance with the U.N. resolution to disarm. (Full story)

Saddam made the order after meeting his top officials Friday, and shortly before convening an extraordinary session of the Iraqi parliament.

"All ministries should implement this decree and take whatever measures are necessary and punish people who do not adhere to it," said the presidential order.

The decree goes some way to meeting a key condition in the U.N. resolution, and could be considered a timely and important step, CNN's Nic Robertson said.

However, the United States said it placed no value on the decree.

"It is impossible to place any credibility in the laws, so-called laws, of a totalitarian dictatorship," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

"If one would want to make believe and pretend that Iraq was a democracy that would pass meaningful laws, it would be 12 years late and 26,000 liters of anthrax short; it would be 12 years late and 38,000 liters of botulism short, and it would be 12 years late, 30,000 unfilled chemical warheads short."

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was more optimistic in his report to the Security Council, calling the decree a "step in the right direction for Iraq."

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, speaking ahead of ElBaradei at the Security Council, said he had not yet reviewed details of the decree.

Also on Friday, Saddam's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, was urged by Pope John Paul II to take "concrete steps" to comply with the United Nations. The pair met at the Vatican. (Full story)
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #2  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
Old Feb 20th, 2003, 11:42 AM        haahg im sick of pre-emptive crap
pre-emptive war is criminal!

A letter to the London Observer from Terry Jones (ex Monty Python).
Letter to the Observer
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's
running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really
pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street.

Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me
queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me,
but so far I haven't been able to discover what.

I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but
he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel,
don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he
is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling
them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my
neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But
that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of
a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless
red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike
and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible
things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.

Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of
automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until
recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush
has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I
can wade in and do whatever I want! And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully
thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about
international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim
fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a
few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.

That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and
children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us
in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.

Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is
that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass
destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as
much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has
for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer
place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever
long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How
will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single
terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's
committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are
the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists,
being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a
future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until
every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might
convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would
be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims? It's the same in my street. Mr
Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens
of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly -
look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all
out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply
using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough
reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole
street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over
all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar
terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say
'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's
just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to
what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #3  
BombsBurstingInAir BombsBurstingInAir is offline
Member
BombsBurstingInAir's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Feb 20th, 2003, 02:21 PM       
This has been known and circulated for at least a week now.
Maybe he'll outlaw dictatorships next.

What is the definition of pre-emptive?
__________________
Hi.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Old Feb 20th, 2003, 03:00 PM       
Look at your sources. Saddam Hussien and an actor who hasn't mattered in 20 years. Why should we care?

And think of it this way, if I'm a criminal, if I'm hiding a ton of guns, wouldn't a law banning them in my town benefit me? Think of it. I'm a criminal so I don't follow the law, and since no one else has guns, how can you enforce the law?
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
Old Feb 20th, 2003, 05:00 PM       
bah, sources? i just liked the statement.. course it could have been shorter.

pre-emptive ie: lets get them before they can get us back, claiming that they were going to strike us. which has not been proven. yea, yea there's lots of pundits saying we've done this before.. is that any reason to do it again!?

Quote:
And think of it this way, if I'm a criminal, if I'm hiding a ton of guns, wouldn't a law banning them in my town benefit me? Think of it. I'm a criminal so I don't follow the law, and since no one else has guns, how can you enforce the law?
so your saying saddam is the criminal? sorry i think of bush when you say criminal ..saddam is way the fuck out there in the middle east and no friggen threat to us.. bush is our threat. If saddam makes one move.. the allies will throw in with us and our strikes..
if we attacked military only and used surgical strikes we would protect iraqis and not create any more usa haters.. but that's not the plan, the plan is not about liberating iraqis or stopping a mad dictator.. if it was our corporate government wouldnt be acting this way.. it's gonna backfire if we strike iraq.
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Old Feb 20th, 2003, 05:42 PM       
Great!! NOW ALL YOU GUYS HAVE TO DO IS GET BUSH TO OUTLAW WAR ......before he goes to war.

THAT WILL STOP ALL THIS WAR BUSINESS!!
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #7  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
Old Feb 20th, 2003, 05:53 PM       
As I understand it, Iraq's "ban" on the import of materials that could be used in the creation of weapons of mass destruction only restricts Iraqi companies. Not the government.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
BombsBurstingInAir BombsBurstingInAir is offline
Member
BombsBurstingInAir's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Feb 20th, 2003, 06:21 PM       
Relating to or constituting a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent: a preemptive nuclear attack.

Undertaken or initiated to deter or prevent an anticipated, usually unpleasant situation or occurrence: The two companies organized a preemptive alliance against a possible takeover by another firm.

I find neither immoral as many have stated.
__________________
Hi.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Old Feb 20th, 2003, 06:42 PM       
Quote:
if we attacked military only and used surgical strikes we would protect iraqis and not create any more usa haters..
Problem is, Saddam is gonna pull his forces into the population centers. Then what?

And what are people waiting for? A mushroom cloud over what used to be Manhattan? Serin gas rolling through Grand Central Station, or Washington? A bioweapon let loose in Atlanta or LA? If the government has proof Saddam is about to strike at us, why wait?
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
BombsBurstingInAir BombsBurstingInAir is offline
Member
BombsBurstingInAir's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Feb 20th, 2003, 06:47 PM       
Let's not forget. The burden is on Saddam to show evidence that he has destroyed his WMD, not on anyone to find evidence that he has WMD. This get's forgotton all too often.

El Blanco is right.
__________________
Hi.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
Old Feb 20th, 2003, 09:49 PM       
a pre-emptive war will be a huge mistake.. i cant see any good coming out of bombing iraq. if Saddam was Not going to do anything to the u.s.(and we have NO hard evidence that he would) we will never know.. the one sure thing we will know is that America has killed thousands more people just in case they were going to attack us.. it won't work out the way they say.. we WILL have more enemies as a result. of course there will be people saying that its a good thing we came.. there's always a cheering section. .but the truth behind the press booths and selected interviews will be hidden.. again..
did you all hear that our government came clean on some of the things that happened to our soldiers in viet nam? a friend of mine had her father come back from being a medic and die of a strange system failure, they said for decades that they did not spray ddt where he was stationed.. till just recently .. oops sorry guys, we did spray you all to hell.. and for 7 months! every action we have, our soldiers are lied to, the people are lied to, and people get killed for no reason.. it doesnt have to be this way folks.
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #12  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 12:09 AM        Favorite things
My favorite thing about reading your posts ranxer is not really your point of view. You're certainly entitled to it. No, my favorite part is how you attempt to pawn off your opinions as facts.

What things will or will not be during and following a war in Iraq is speculation, yet somehow you seem to think you know the answer, as if it's an absolute certainty. You may very well be right, I'm just curious as to how you know it so clearly. I thought Ms. Cleo was out of business.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Baalzamon Baalzamon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The darkness of your soul
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 02:21 AM       
Quote:
Let's not forget. The burden is on Saddam to show evidence that he has destroyed his WMD, not on anyone to find evidence that he has WMD. This get's forgotton all too often.

El Blanco is right.
Now, its probably not for me to say whether or not this applies, but...

If someone accuses you of a crime, it is not your responsibility to prove your innocence, it is the accusing party's responsibility to prove your guilt.

It is almost impossible for him to prove that he has destroyed everything, because there is always the possibility of something hidden, and that means the the U.S. will never be satisfied with anything he says. Even if he did tell the truth and try to back it up with proof, I do not beleive that anyone would take him seriously at this point, or that Bush would back off. So what the hell is the guy supposed to do?

The U.N. needs to come out with a clear statement about what it expects from this man. Then it needs to state in no uncertain terms that compliance will end all talk of war, and non-compliance means use of force.

The problem now is that no matter what he does, its "not enough" and hes "stalling for time". well, what the fuck do you want.

Assume for a minute that he is telling the truth and there are no weapons of mass destruction. Probably not true, but innocent untill proven guilty right...?

Anyway, if he is telling the truth, what would it take to satisfy the pro-war group? I dont think its possible to do that, and thats why I'm opposed to this war. This is not about any real danger from Iraq, this is about impatience. This man is so well contained st the moment that he is no threat to anybody, especially the U.S. There is nothing this man can do right now short of stepping down and fleeing the country(not really such a bad thing, but he probably wont) that would appease the warhawks, and I find that senseless desire for war disgusting.

War is inevitable, not because Saddam is lying, not because there is some moral grounds for removing him, but simply because Bush wants it. There will be no other way because Bush wont accept that under any circumstances, and the whole process is a sham. Time will prove me right.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 02:59 AM        Sort of....
One thing I think that gets castly overstated is the idea that this is Dubya's issue. As if it was a none factor for the last ten years, which is not the case. Clinton deployed troops and authorized air strikes several times during his term, most notably in 1998.

Regardless, I read some stuff about Clinton that lends some credibility to the matter. Ken Pollack, who was a member of Clintons foreign policy team, observed that during the Clinton administration, ironically enough, Al Gore was one of the main proponents of action in Iraq. Ultimately, Bill decided that he had to choose one or the other. Either devout resources to Iraq, which would likely not hold popular support, or hope limited containment with all it's flaws would be sufficient, which would thereby allow him to focus his assets on other issues (ie. Somalia, Bosnia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).

In other words, the idea of regime change in Iraq is not new. It's been in various stages of activity since the first botched overthrow attempt immediately following the cease fire in GW 1. While Bush has certainly advanced the cause, and no doubt is taking advantage of a perceived public support following 9/11, the idea of regime change has been floating around the government since Dubya was managing baseball teams.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 11:25 AM       
if i seem too sure, i'm not so sure that im done looking for 'facts' but, yes im very sure that reality is such a thing that we can be realitively sure of most anything if we have enough evidence, even though its not popular. i'm making lots of assumptions, like i believe human nature is essentially good. so, as i say to rabid anti bush folks, bush is still a human being that is influenced by the world.. sheesh it should be common sense but people argue with that, hah. oh well.

so take basic principles like that add them up and you/we take a stand on an issue with our beliefs and 'facts' do we have time to go into all our sources? no.. we are all practicing definitivism.. or something like that..

theres evidence of many things that are being ignored.. why is what being ignored gives a picture of what is going on that is different from the 'released' or 'leaked' or 'facts' as the media feeds it to us.. its hard sometimes to stop and say 'thats too weak to continue looking into' ever pick up an almanac and see what is vs what is NOT in there? the information from this view helps explain what IS presented in a new way.. some call it taking the red pill!

Bush's war? not just bush, he represents a group of the most powerful oil/military/business people in america, but they are people too :/ sounds to me like some have started to talk about maybe not needing to go to war. just a hint that they are squirming for a way to back out maybe. i do believe that peaceful protest is making a difference.. as people are saying though, inspections may not be enough.. they are 'determined' to go to war..i dunno about that, if shown as a bad gamble enough they will have to see it. it seems true that we are giving iraq the white glove inspection.. if so it will come back to haunt us, there's no doubt of that. maybe with overwhelming force we could take over the country without a shot fired. then we would be left to prove that its Not imperialism.
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:07 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.