« blackmail valentine | Main | my creepy valentine »

for those thick, hard to reach skulls

Repeat after me. Maybe you'll get it this time.

The burden of proof is on Iraq, not the U.N., not the U.S. Saddam Hussein must show what he did with all his chemical and biological agents. He must show proof that he destroyed what weapons were once declared.

The fact that Blix and company did not find some giant nuclear reactor sitting in the middle of the desert does not mean that Saddam is off the hook. He has yet to hold up his end of the baragain.

If, after twelve years of the games, Saddam has not followed through on the resolutions, nor shown evidence of destroying his weapons and ingredients, I would think that's a pretty good sign that not only is he hiding something, but he's not going to show us what it is.

Unless, of course, he shows us by a hands-on demonstration of their use.

Do you get it yet? Or does someone need to draw you a diagram?

Faster, please.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference for those thick, hard to reach skulls:

» MORE CLOSET WARBLOGGING from DiVERSiONZ
Blah, blah, blah...more of the same at today's big over hyped UN Security Council get together. It's all just [Read More]

» Longish Post from Weekend Pundit
Michele at A Small Victory has the right of it when it comes to Iraq, the UN weapons inspectors, the numerous UNSC resolutions, and the [Read More]

» The Burden Of Proof from Weekend Pundit
Michele at A Small Victory has the right of it when it comes to Iraq, the UN weapons inspectors, the numerous UNSC resolutions, and the [Read More]

Comments

I so wish I'd hear just that from Ari, Bush, Rummy, and Colin! That Powell would just stand there and SCREAM it at the counsel!

Saddam is brilliantly using stalling tactics on those thick hard to reach skulls.

He has been stalling for 12 years. Times up.

Just to question your logic which wouldn't become better when you were drawing a picture. Isn't it your famous american system in which everyone is so long innocent as his guilt is prooven? So how does this come to work here where Iraq? For not to get me wrong - I, too, think he should show that there is no reason for the US to go after him, but why is it you (the americans) who want it?

Lilli, the guilt was proven in 1991. Or do you need a picture drawn?

cause we don't want to get blown up or gassed. it doesn't have to be complex.

Posted by your humble blogger at Eschaton today under "Right Wing Terrorism Watch":

"The USS Kitty Hawk Battle Group commander, Rear Adm. Steven Kunkle, was relieved of command Thursday, accused of an “inappropriate relationship” with a female officer.

Citing “a loss of confidence in his ability to command,” 7th Fleet commander Vice Adm. Robert Willard took the action following an Article 15 hearing Thursday at Yokosuka Naval Base, Japan, said Cmdr. Matt Brown, a 7th Fleet spokesman. He added that Kunkle received a punitive letter of reprimand."

Link:

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=13068

Too bad Clinton wasn't in the military. He would have been relieved of his duty (and rightfully so). Of course, we hold (Democrat) Presidents to a lower standard than . . . anyone or anything...

In my country, and in my alphabet this letter is an N not an S. So when I look at UN I don't see US. Seeing as these are UN resolutions, what gives the US the right to go to war without UN approval? And preventing terrorism isn't the correct answers kiddies, because any sort of war will only cause MORE terrorism. Revenge isn't the right answer because Iraq hasn't commited any crimes against the US. National security isn't the answer because Iraq hasn't shown any sort of threat to the security of the US. Humanitarian reasons aren't the answer because economic sanctions are causing more harm than anything Saddam has done. Now that we've eliminated those answers, tell me why the US has the right to invade Iraq? Anyone, anyone, anyone...

Ari Fleischer guest-blogging today?

Again with the idiocy.

Say, Chip -- if the US were so hell-bent on going to war without UN approval, we'd not be debating the issue now. It would have been solved a long time ago.

As for the war causing terrorism bit, that's one of the stupidest pieces of anti-war propaganda out there. Since when have Arab terrorists felt the need to wait for a war for them to attack us? Of any of the last thirty-five years, when has that ever been the case?

Who has ever said this was about revenge? Oh, I know the answer to that! The moronic anti-war protesters who want to make it into something it isn't!

Iraq has never shown a threat to the US? Really! I suppose you don't count Saddam Hussein saying that even though he couldn't get the Iraqi military to American shores, individual arabs surely could make it. That's not a threat? What the fuck is it?

Ah, the economic sanctions argument -- the hallmark of sheer stupidity! So, your suggestion is that we not only don't disarm Iraq, we give them no incentive to disarm, pack up everything, go home and admit that despite watching his forces rout before his very eyes in 1991, Iraq still managed to win that war. Putting the onus of the sanctions on any government other than Iraq's is dishonest, and you know that.

You've not eliminated anything, Chip, except for your own morality.

I'm not making any of those assumptions or statements chad. I'm simply asking what right does the U.S. have in going to war with Iraq? How come George Dubyah has threatened unilateral action? What is the basis for the U.S. to go into Iraq? If an incentive is what Saddam needs to disarm, then let the UN give him one. Let the UN complete their inspections, if they find nothing or something, and decide that some sort of military solution is necessary then the U.S. can let the dogs of war free. I just don't understand why all the pro-war people jump to their feet and yell Terrorism every time their shit head government representatives (FOX News) announces some sort of plot, or plays a phony tape. But when it's revealed to be a false recording, or a plot based on lies, they just look for the next reason to kill some innocent Iraqi citizens and steal some land. I wonder when the Red alert will be sounded? Probably soon, now that there have been some articles talking about Government corruption in the Enron investigations. Give me one valid reason to go to war with Iraq, that's all I ask.

Chip,
Maybe when we are done stealing all the oil in Iraq we will turn our attention north and take all the oil you folks are hiding from us under that tundra.

After all , its all about the oil!

If you want to avoid the invasion, move to Quebec because even we don't want those nasty Canucks. They don't tip and they smell bad.

We will accept the Newfies with open arms as anyone that most Canadians look down their noses at must be OK.

When we are done with you, Canada will be Mexico with snow.

Wait... outer provinces regulated and taxed to death by the corrupt central government?... you already are Mexico with snow...

Have a nice day and...

WATCH THE SOUTHERN SKY!!!

"If an incentive is what Saddam needs to disarm, then let the UN give him one."

What the hell do you think the sanctions were? The twelve years of sanctions. Let the UN give him one? What one? What's left? Tell us, oh great mind of the peace movement, what incentive can we give him that we haven't given him already? We gave him money to rebuild his country. We gave him money to feed his people. We gave him money to rebuild non-military infrastructure. We've sanctioned him and threatened him -- please tell me, what else is there?

One valid reason, you twit? You come here nearly every damn day and see several. Open your fucking mind, dipshit.

Chips questions are irrelevant because states do not exist in some tangible legal environment. In international matters there are no police, there are no judges, there are no jails or courtrooms. The US is going to act against Iraq because it is a proven threat to us, our interests and our allies in the region. As an added bonus, we will be greatly improving the lives of the Iraqi people (an intelligent and charming folk if the ones I've met are any indication of the rest of the nation).

If this were your neighborhood, Chip, you could call the cops and arrest Saddam for his outlawery. That would be swell. But it ain't your neighborhood, son. The only thing that will see Saddam effectively restrained from his wickedness is brute military force. And, when it boils right down to it, if France and Germany don't like it, they can try to stop us (and get their baguettes and bratwurst shoved up their asses in the process).

In the end, Saddam will be dead or gone, Iraq will be freed from his vile thuggery, and the Mideast will be a better place (oh, and your prediction of more terrorism is hogwash, too....ask me why). And the simpering EUrocrats will have to like it, because they won't have a fucking choice. The French have a word for it, "fait accompli." That's what they're going to get.

Don't tell Mike S, but I'm on acid right now.

Jeffersonian, I applaud your optimism! I'm am sure that Iraq will soon be a thriving democracy! Of course, the fact that 54% of the population are Shia Muslim may complicate things ... and the Kurds, because Turkey is worried that their Kurds might get uppity ... but they're an intelligent and charming folk, I'm sure they'll work it all out.

But I'd watch those 'simpering EUrocrats' if I were you. There's talk that a united Europe could become the next economic power and that all the US has to look forward to is a long, slow decline (not something your neighbours are looking forward to, as our economies are closely tied to yours). Could they're belligerent 'tude be inspired by that knowledge?

Of course, what do I know? I'm just a lowly junkie.

I blame all typos on the drugs.

You are right, Saddam is a lunatic and we have to get rid of him, however...

What is the big hurry? Why not give the UN 6 more months. It can hardly hurt? We "give peace a chance". War is dirty, people die, women, children and American soldiers. War could screw up the economy even more, war could set the ME ablaze.

I think it is worth 6 more months, then we can blow his ass away.

VH,
Switzerland

6 months. That's a long time. As much as everyone is arguing, I wouldn't be surprised to wake up some morning soon and hear that either a) Saddam and his cabal have fled Iraq, or b) Saddam and his cabal have been overthrown internally.

And then all you hawks will say to the rest of us, "I told you so."

... and then?

I agree that Hussein is a genocidal tyrant. That's why I am not against getting rid of him - I really believe the lives of a vast majority of Iraqis will be greatly improved if he is gone. I agree, though, that it would be infinitely better to wait until we had full international support. I just wonder if "six months" will turn into "a year" will turn into "never"...the reason I'm not a pacifist is that I still (idealistic, foolish me!) that some things are still worth fighting for. Oil isn't one of them, but the Iraqi people are.

I agree that Hussein is a genocidal tyrant. That's why I am not against getting rid of him - I really believe the lives of a vast majority of Iraqis will be greatly improved if he is gone. I agree, though, that it would be infinitely better to wait until we had full international support. I just wonder if "six months" will turn into "a year" will turn into "never"...the reason I'm not a pacifist is that I still (idealistic, foolish me!) believe that some things are still worth fighting for. Oil isn't one of them, but the Iraqi people are.

oops, i hit post twice