Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Iraq offered a last minute deal to avoid war.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    The lives of many U.S. Soldiers may have been spared if this had panned out. Yet Bush was too obstinate to even consider opening a back channel to Iraq.
    Shame on you Bush. The blood of our soldiers is on your hands.

    Impeach Bush, he's a war criminal!

    [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/politics/06INTE.html?pagewanted=1&hp]http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/politics...pagewanted=1&hp[/url]

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's really a pity. You're side is getting so desperate, they're into trying anything. They believe the populace is sooooo stupid that they would believe that Saddam was sincere enough to extend an olive branch and war could have been avoided. CUMBAYAH!

    Meanwhile the economy is improving, support for the war is steady, the nine mental midgets are imploding and little-by-little states are turning red.

    Nine, freaking candidates, a sympathetic media and not one can put a dent in the "Fratboy" and "Pork Chop's" popularity.

    It just gets better and better!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Nov 6 2003, 04:58 PM
    [b] Nine, freaking candidates, a sympathetic media and not one can put a dent in the "Fratboy" and "Pork Chop's" popularity.

    [/b][/quote]
    The November 4, 2003 Marist Poll reports the following.

    [b]MINDS MADE UP?
    38% of registered voters definitely plan to vote to re-elect President Bush in 2004 and 44% definitely plan to vote against him. The remaining 18% are not committed either way.[/b]

    BTW weeb... since you Love the war so much, why don't you grow a set and join the ARMY? Let's see you crawl out from under your mousepad and put your life on the line.

    Phoney!

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Nov 6 2003, 05:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Nov 6 2003, 05:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Nov 6 2003, 04:58 PM
    [b] Nine, freaking candidates, a sympathetic media and not one can put a dent in the "Fratboy" and "Pork Chop&#39;s" popularity.

    [/b][/quote]
    The November 4, 2003 Marist Poll reports the following.

    [b]MINDS MADE UP?
    38% of registered voters definitely plan to vote to re-elect President Bush in 2004 and 44% definitely plan to vote against him. The remaining 18% are not committed either way.[/b]

    BTW weeb... since you Love the war so much, why don&#39;t you grow a set and join the ARMY? Let&#39;s see you crawl out from under your mousepad and put your life on the line.

    Phoney&#33; [/b][/quote]
    How about all the murderers running around killing policemen, the guys that protect both our lilly white asses? I guess if I&#39;m not willing to quit my job and become a cop, I have no right to support the belief that police should go out there, put their butts on the line and protect us.

    I&#39;m not a fireman. Firemen die in the line of duty. I suppose we should disband all firehouses because I&#39;m not a fireman. Are you really that mentally challenged?

    I wasn&#39;t alive during WWI and WWII to witness the carnage that ensued and all the brave men that died to allow me to use this mousepad and for you to act like a big dufus, either.

    There&#39;s a war in Afghanistan too. Against an enemy that DEFINATELY attacked your homeland (America, not France). So am I to assume if you support that one and you&#39;re not fighting it, you&#39;re a phoney as well?

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Nov 6 2003, 12:28 PM
    [b] The lives of many U.S. Soldiers may have been spared if this had panned out. Yet Bush was too obstinate to even consider opening a back channel to Iraq.
    Shame on you Bush. The blood of our soldiers is on your hands.

    Impeach Bush, he&#39;s a war criminal&#33;

    [/b][/quote]
    I read the article and I don&#39;t think " Bush was too obstinate " or there&#39;s any Blood on his hands etc......

    Iraq had many oppurtunities to avoid this situation peacefully if it truly wanted to but decided to play a dangerous game of chicken instead.

    I have a hard time believing the administration could&#39;ve known for sure that this Lebanese - american was legitimate or not and even if they thought he was Saddam had a history of breaking his word so what type of deal are you gonna make with someone whose a pathological liar anyway ?.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by MARYLAND JET[/i]@Nov 7 2003, 12:31 AM
    [b] Iraq had many oppurtunities to avoid this situation peacefully if it truly wanted to but decided to play a dangerous game of chicken instead.

    [/b][/quote]
    I&#39;m not sure I understand this comment...how did Iraq play chicken? We told them to get rid of WMD, they said they didn&#39;t have any. We bombed them and there appears to be a very strong possibility that they were telling the truth. I just don&#39;t see a game of chicken, please explain.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by AirForceJetFan+Nov 7 2003, 07:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (AirForceJetFan @ Nov 7 2003, 07:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--MARYLAND JET[/i]@Nov 7 2003, 12:31 AM
    [b] Iraq had many oppurtunities to avoid this situation peacefully if it truly wanted to but decided to play a dangerous game of chicken instead.

    [/b][/quote]
    I&#39;m not sure I understand this comment...how did Iraq play chicken? We told them to get rid of WMD, they said they didn&#39;t have any. We bombed them and there appears to be a very strong possibility that they were telling the truth. I just don&#39;t see a game of chicken, please explain. [/b][/quote]
    This is a ridiculously simplistic and erroneous way to look at things, Air Force.

    We (meaning the USA - including the most recent 3 administrations - the UN and the rest of the civilized world) knew that he had stockpiles of chemical mad biological weapons that were unaccounted for, even after the time period immediately following the first Gulf War when Saddam did destroy many of his weapons. When his son-in-law, who was the head of the program, defected in 1995 and spilled the beans to Clinton, including much documentation, what had been long suspected since 1991 became readily apparent - namely that Saddam had never ceased his pursuit and production of chem, bio and yes, even nuclear weapons. (This son-in-law returned to Iraq and was murdered by Saddam) It took some time for all of this to come out, and when the USA was convinced of its authenticity, Clinton famously attacked Iraq in 1998 and uses WMD rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from Bush&#39;s, namely talking about how "We know he has these weapons, we know he has used them in the past, inspections have not worked and will never work, Saddam has not decided to disarm, we need to disarm him by force...." The UN inspectors left Iraq in advance of the US attack and were never allowed to return&#33; So, were are now supposed to believe that during the four long years (1998 to 2002) that inspectors were not in the country that Saddam chose that particular time to reverse 25 years of behavioral patterns, destroy ALL of his WMD, yet FORGET to document or be able to prove it?? The US stationed a quarter of a billion troops in Saddam&#39;s backyard in 2002 and guess when Saddam decided to allow UN inspectors back?? That&#39;s right - as soon as REAL consequences became apparent.

    He was found to be in material breach of ALL 16 UN resolutions enacted since 1991, including the very ones used to justify the first Gulf War - namely...the ENTIRE WORLD concluded that nothing had changed during the past 12 years. Saddam was given an ultimatum - submit a final, complete accounting of all your weapons or else&#33; Well, in December of 2002 he submitted this "final" report and was woefully incomplete. For example, those Al-Samoud missiles that everyone gave Saddam credit for destroying during the 2003 inspections - those weren&#39;t included in the December report&#33;&#33; He wasn&#39;t supposed to have them, he did and HE LIED ABOUT IT&#33;&#33;&#33; Many of them were buried in the sand&#33;&#33;&#33; Was Iraq telling the truth then?

    After this report was unanimously deemed to be bullsh*t, the inspections resumed and even Hans Blix said that Saddam was not complying with them like someone would who HAD made a fundamental decision to disarm.

    All of the UN machinations are only written to inform you that Saddam and Iraq have been lying and hiding things for 12 long years. During that time they have also been supporting terrorism, Hams, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and yes, AQ. (Just because Saddam probably didn&#39;t have anything to do with the planning of one specific AQ operation (9/11) does not imply that he had no contact at all with that organization) It is also not just AQ we are fighting in the war on terrorism - it is ALL terrorists and the fact that Saddam supported, fostered and financed terror is indisputable by rational, informed people.

    Saddam defied us for too long. He p*ssy-footed around and never complied to the terms of the cease-fire agreement resulting from a war HE started and HE lost. The USA was not going to take it anymore, sorry.

    If Saddam DIDN&#39;T have WMD why didn&#39;t he prove it? Why didn&#39;t he document their destruction or video-tape their destruction, why didn&#39;t he let UN inspectors have unfettered access to EVERYTHING they wanted? He obstructed, EVEN AS LATE AS 2003&#33;&#33;&#33; The burden of proof is NOT on the USA to find them; it was on Saddam to prove he had destroyed all of them and to let the civilized world look wherever they want to. Hell, Saddam wouldn&#39;t even let his scientists be interviewed without a Ba&#39;athist secret police present&#33;&#33;

    This nonsense about some late olive branch is ridiculous. It would have been just another meaningless treaty. Saddam had many, many chances to come clean. He chose not to and he chose this war.

    The USA signed a treaty with N Korea in 1994 that made everyone feel all warm and fuzzy inside and "peaceful." Well, it turns out a treaty is only as valid as the people who sign it and it turns out that perhaps force would have been better, cause N Korea stuck it to us. The WTC was attacked in 1993 (by an Iraqi&#33;&#33;&#33;) and Clinton responded with lawyers, not airplanes. Khobar Towers, marine barracks in Lebanon, USS Cole and dozens of other terrorist attacks went without punishment. The USA ran like frightened kittens in Somalia after a single bad day and 1) the world thought we couldnít stomach a fight and would run at the first sign of trouble and 2) that area has now become a terrorist hotbed (including AQ). it is precisely THIS REASON why idiots like Tailgators and his ilk call Bush a war criminal. Signing a MEANINGLESS treaty is a far easier, less career-risky thing to do. Clinton felt great about that 1994 treaty, but IT DIDN&#39;T ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING anc worse, it was destructive. However, had he used force he would have been considered a &#39;war monger" and a "war criminal."

    It boggles my mind that people think this Iraq War is unjust, it really does. When was the AQ threat "imminent?" When was a good time to invade Afghanistan and take AQ out? Clearly, October 2001 was too late, when was the right time? 2000? 1999? What political risk would any President during these times have incurred from second-guessers? Because if AQ was disrupted substantially prior to 9/11, perhaps 9/11 doesn&#39;t happen. Then all people would say would be" well, where was the threat?&#33;?&#33;? It wasn&#39;t worth a single American life?&#33;?&#33;?" If you tried to tell them that perhaps AQ could have attacked America and killed thousands in one day, they would have called you an idiot.

    This is similar to the same people who say, "Where&#39;s the threat from Saddam? Blah blah blah." Appeasement NEVER works (see N Korea, Germany in 1930-40&#39;s) You don&#39;t sit back and wait for attacks, you go out and prevent them. Aside from all of this, Saddam was a major regional threat, and a huge financier and supporter of terrorism. The human-rights apsect of this war doesn&#39;t interest me at all, even though I find it funny that those who lament the Iraqis killed during the war ( a few thousand, tops) have NOTHING to say about the tens of thousands that Saddam killed. He would have wiped out ALL of the Kurds he didn&#39;t get with the gas if it weren&#39;t for the courage and daily vigilence of your buddies, our pilots.

    Saddam did not cause 9-11, but what 9-11 DID make Bush realize that is the old way of doing things is over. No more lobbing missiles or using lawyers or running away at the first sign of danger or signing some meaningless treaty with a country we KNOW to be dishonest AND NO MORE WAITING TO BE ATTACKED or NOT TAKING THE THREAT OF TERRORISM SERIOUSLY&#33;

    Also - do you have any idea of the sh*t that the administrations (both Bush II and Clinton) must know about that us ordinary blokes have no clue about? The de-classified stuff is bad enough, I canít imagine what other stuff is out there&#33;

    The burden of proof was never on the USA or the UN to prove that Saddam HAD those WMD, the burden of proof was on Saddam to prove that he had destroyed all of them. Simply saying, "we don&#39;t have any" doesn&#39;t cut it. It&#39;d be like North Korea saying, "Yeah, we don&#39;t have any nukes." We&#39;d STILL think the 1994 non-proliferation treaty was effectual if Korea didn&#39;t recently come out and TELL us that they had them. What if Clinton had wanted to invade North Korea in 1999? What if the USA didn&#39;t find any nukes after the attack, would Clinton have been wrong?

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by AirForceJetFan+Nov 7 2003, 08:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (AirForceJetFan @ Nov 7 2003, 08:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--MARYLAND JET[/i]@Nov 7 2003, 12:31 AM
    [b] Iraq had many oppurtunities to avoid this situation peacefully if it truly wanted to but decided to play a dangerous game of chicken instead.

    [/b][/quote]
    I&#39;m not sure I understand this comment...how did Iraq play chicken? We told them to get rid of WMD, they said they didn&#39;t have any. We bombed them and there appears to be a very strong possibility that they were telling the truth. I just don&#39;t see a game of chicken, please explain. [/b][/quote]
    I&#39;ll be happy to.....part of the agrement to end the gulf war included Iraq agreeing to allow the U.N complete access to any area the inspectors wanted to search.

    Then when it came time to search areas the Iraquis repeatedly stalled, harassed and denied access to areas where the inspectors wanted to go.

    At one point they even kicked the inspectors out of the country claiming they were spies, that&#39;s why the U.N had numerous resolutions imploring the Iraquis to live up to their end of the agreement.

    Clearly they were acting like they had something to hide and that&#39;s why I said they could&#39;ve peacefully avoided this situation, they acted { for whatever reason they had } like they were hiding something by simply refusing to cooperate fully and unconditionally.

    Now, if they didn&#39;t have any WMD&#39;s and were intentionally trying to act like they might because they feared their neighbors would attack them if they knew Iraq didn&#39;t have the ability to obliterate them then I would call that a dangerous game of chicken with the U.N that they lost.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    5-ever...What a line of crap&#33;&#33;

    Its obvious to everyone except war mongers like you that in March 2003 Iraq had [b]NO WMD&#39;S&#33;[/b] Go ahead and cite Clinton, Blix or the UN all you want but only this assclown Bush felt it was necessary to invade and colonize Iraq in order to disarm it, and now our fine young soldiers(the flower of our youth) are getting massacred over there.

    Since you love this war so much why don&#39;t you grow a set join the ARMY, go over there and partipate in it. Please climb out from under your mousepad and put your money where your mouth is. You have no excuse your a young man in your twenties, go for it&#33;&#33; Otherwise your a phoney.

    Lastly don&#39;t even try to bounce this challenge back on me, when I was in my early twenties I did my part. That&#39;s all I&#39;m gonna say.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 7 2003, 10:17 AM
    [b] When was the AQ threat "imminent?" When was a good time to invade Afghanistan and take AQ out? Clearly, October 2001 was too late, when was the right time? 2000? 1999? What political risk would any President during these times have incurred from second-guessers? Because if AQ was disrupted substantially prior to 9/11, perhaps 9/11 doesn&#39;t happen
    [/b][/quote]
    You have no basis in fact to make such a statement. Bear in mind the AQ is a cellular network, even if you eliminated 90% of it there would still be intact cells who are poised to attack.

    Also, lest we forget that the weapon of choice for those bastards were boxcutters.

    Lastly, it isn&#39;t even clear that we took AQ out&#33; Not even CAP Bush claims this.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Nov 7 2003, 10:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Nov 7 2003, 10:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Nov 7 2003, 10:17 AM
    [b] When was the AQ threat "imminent?" When was a good time to invade Afghanistan and take AQ out? Clearly, October 2001 was too late, when was the right time? 2000? 1999? What political risk would any President during these times have incurred from second-guessers? Because if AQ was disrupted substantially prior to 9/11, perhaps 9/11 doesn&#39;t happen
    [/b][/quote]
    You have no basis in fact to make such a statement. Bear in mind the AQ is a cellular network, even if you eliminated 90% of it there would still be intact cells who are poised to attack.

    Also, lest we forget that the weapon of choice for those bastards were boxcutters. [/b][/quote]
    I&#39;m pretty sure planes had something to do with all of those people dying, jack*ass.

    Also - FYI, I was in a car accident during college and have had to go to a chiropracter twice a month for the last 8 years and am not and was not fit for military duty.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 7 2003, 11:21 AM
    [b] Also - FYI, I was in a car accident during college and have had to go to a chiropracter twice a month for the last 8 years and am not and was not fit for military duty. [/b][/quote]
    Sorry to hear about that Mr. Ivy League. In that case you shouldn&#39;t be so anxious for other people to fight your battles and get killed. Otherwise toughen up, grab a gun and put your money where your mouth is&#33;&#33;

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fight MY battles? &#39;Mr. Ivy League?&#39; You aren&#39;t even making sense. Am I supposed to feel badly for going to good schools?

    I DO put my money where my mouth is and have contributed thousands of dollars to military charites and have been doing so for years and years. I have family members who are over there right now. How much money have you contributed to military charites or the armed forces??

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 7 2003, 11:31 AM
    [b] Fight MY battles? &#39;Mr. Ivy League?&#39; You aren&#39;t even making sense. Am I supposed to feel badly for going to good schools?

    I DO put my money where my mouth is and have contributed thousands of dollars to military charites and have been doing so for years and years. I have family members who are over there right now. How much money have you contributed to military charites or the armed forces?? [/b][/quote]
    So you&#39;re trying to buy your way out of this?

    During the Civil war rich people bought there way out of the war by hiring replacements. You sound like one of those cowards.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Nov 7 2003, 10:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Nov 7 2003, 10:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Nov 7 2003, 11:31 AM
    [b] Fight MY battles? &#39;Mr. Ivy League?&#39; You aren&#39;t even making sense. Am I supposed to feel badly for going to good schools?

    I DO put my money where my mouth is and have contributed thousands of dollars to military charites and have been doing so for years and years. I have family members who are over there right now. How much money have you contributed to military charites or the armed forces?? [/b][/quote]
    So you&#39;re trying to buy your way out of this?

    During the Civil war rich people bought there way out of the war by hiring replacements. You sound like one of those cowards. [/b][/quote]
    Buy my way out of what Tail? - I CAN&#39;T SERVE&#33;

    You are just being argumentative and I have already wasted enough time. I support my troops with more than words, I do it with money as well. I am not buying my way "out" of anything. I can barely play tennis for five minutes without experiencing pain, I&#39;d be worthless in the military. I considered the Navy during college and may or may not have enlisted upin graduation. My father was a Lt. Commander and served in Nam and had great things to say about it. I was accepted at both Annapolis and Princeton and chose Princeton...it was a tough choice and I still to this day don&#39;t know if I made the right decision.
    But I chose Princeton and got injured and that was that for the military. I come from a military family and my little brother just got accepted and is planning on attending Annapolis, I give a high % of my income to military charities and have cousins who are in Mosul right now.

    Bite me, this side-show is over - you&#39;re a friggin joke.....

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by AirForceJetFan[/i]@Nov 7 2003, 08:51 AM
    [b] I&#39;m not sure I understand this comment...how did Iraq play chicken? We told them to get rid of WMD, they said they didn&#39;t have any. We bombed them and there appears to be a very strong possibility that they were telling the truth. I just don&#39;t see a game of chicken, please explain. [/b][/quote]
    For the liberals, so in love with the UN, lets review the relevant resolutions and see which one of you can spin Saddam into a model world citizen. For the war not to start, every one of these should have bbeen followed TO THE LETTER by Iraq. Read through and see if you can find the relevant passages that confirm Saddam was playing chicken.

    [u]UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002 [/u]
    Found that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its disarmament obligations.
    Gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply.
    Demanded that Iraq submit a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of its weapons of mass destruction and related programs within 30 days.
    Demanded that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally and actively with the UN inspections.
    Decided that false statements or omissions in Iraq&#39;s declarations and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution would constitute further material breach.
    Recalls that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.

    [u]UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999[/u]
    Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities. Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
    Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

    [u]UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998 [/u]
    "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
    Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

    [u]UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998 [/u]
    "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

    [u]UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998 [/u]
    Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

    [u]UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997 [/u]
    "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

    [u]UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997 [/u]
    "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

    [u]UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997 [/u]
    "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

    [u]UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996 [/u]
    "Deplores" Iraq&#39;s refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq&#39;s "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.

    [u]UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996 [/u]
    Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
    Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

    [u]UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994 [/u]
    "Condemns" Iraq&#39;s recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
    Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

    [u]UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991 [/u]
    Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

    [u]UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991 [/u]
    "Condemns" Iraq&#39;s "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
    "Further condemns" Iraq&#39;s noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
    Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
    Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
    Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
    Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
    Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
    Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

    [u]UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991[/u]
    "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
    Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
    Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

    [u]UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991 [/u]
    Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
    Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
    Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
    Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
    Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
    Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
    Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
    Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
    Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

    [u]UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991 [/u]
    Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
    Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
    Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

    [u]UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990 [/u]
    Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq&#39;s illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
    [b]Authorizes UN Member States "to use [u]all necessary means[/u] to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."[/b]

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 7 2003, 11:41 AM
    [b] Buy my way out of what Tail? - I CAN&#39;T SERVE&#33;

    I can barely play tennis for five minutes without experiencing pain.

    Bite me, this side-show is over - you&#39;re a friggin joke..... [/b][/quote]
    No...You&#39;re the joke "Mr. Backache".

    Toughen up you wimp&#33;

  18. #18
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    7,729
    Post Thanks / Like
    Jets5ever, why do you waste your time attempting rational discourse with the guy?

    I am convinced that he is -- at the very least -- mildly retarded. There can really be no other explanation for the ludicrous non-sequiturs that make following his "logic" such an impossible task.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Nov 7 2003, 02:52 PM
    [b] Jets5ever, why do you waste your time attempting rational discourse with the guy?

    [/b][/quote]
    shakin...You&#39;re a childish imbecile, who as far as I&#39;ve seen has never posted an original idea. You&#39;re a toxic person.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Nov 7 2003, 01:52 PM
    [b] Jets5ever, why do you waste your time attempting rational discourse with the guy?

    I am convinced that he is -- at the very least -- mildly retarded. There can really be no other explanation for the ludicrous non-sequiturs that make following his "logic" such an impossible task. [/b][/quote]
    Good advice. I have literally wasted months trying to reason with this guy and its no use - he&#39;s not principled.

    Tail - no offense intended and I only post this because it&#39;s true:

    Shakin has more intelligence and principle in his snot than you have in your entire body. Weeb, Bugg, Come back and Maryland have been consistently taking you to school for a long time now.

    Try to read Jet Set&#39;s work, you may learn something....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us