+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/18/2018 08:27 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  5.388 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
02/10/2004 03:47 PM ID: 36859 Permalink   

Russia Says 'Told You So' On Iraq WMD


Russia's ambassador to the UN Sergei Lavrov has said that his country had been vindicated for their stance against the US/UK during the run-up to the Iraq war. He said that recent events had proved that his country was right to ask for more UN time.

At that time, the US and UK were using the intelligence of stockpiled and useable WMD in Iraq as the reason for war. Russia was arguing that they didn't have enough information to justify war and that was why they supported further UN inspections.

"We said that we don't have information which would prove that the WMD, weapons of mass destruction, programmes remain in Iraq. We also said we don't have information that those programmes have been fully stopped." he remarked.

    WebReporter: Flashby Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  nothing to do with Russian dependence on Iraqi oil  
everybody knows they got a whole lot out of Iraq. but no - Russia, in all its restraint (see: Chechnya) warned the U.S. and U.K. to hold off, but they just wouldn't listen!
  by: sbenglish     02/10/2004 04:23 PM     
  Of course..  
But the US, UK, Aus, and any other country for the war were all in it for their interests as well. Russia was and still is owed billions of dollars by Iraq from contracts ranging from building to oil supply.
The Russians knew if the war went ahead, they could kiss goodbye that money.
  by: Whipd+Kreem     02/10/2004 04:38 PM     
  Russians dependant on Iraqi oil?  
If I remember correctly Russia is a net exporter of oil.
Differences between chechnya and Iraq
Chechnya is a part of Russia, Iraq is not a part of the US.
Chechen terrorists bomb Russia on a regular basis and attack Russian soldiers. Iraq does not support Al-Queda.
I can continue if you wish
  by: Necralis   02/10/2004 04:46 PM     
  How about  
Posting some evidentiary links to your claims, Necralis. That would help. You see, there was a little mother of all wars that Saddamm lost and signed an instrument of surrender over. In that surrender, Saddamm agreed to dismantle his WMD programs and provide verification of this through the UN inspection process. If a defeated state defies the conditions of an instrument of surrender, the treaty is nullified and the war continues. Think of a surrender as a cease fire. If you and I declare a cease fire and 2 days later I shoot your dog, you are entirely justified in resuming aggressive actions and may shoot my cat. Since Saddamm did not abide by the conditions of the instrument of surrender, bombs away. In addition to that surrender treaty, there were 12 years of UN Security Council Resolutions that called on Iraq to honor it's commitment to disarm. For 12 years, Saddamm and his cronies defied the UN (an international coalition). Russia is wrong. The US reasoning for this war was persuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1441 that declared Iraq in material breach of 12 years of resolutions from the international community. Russia voted yes to UN Security Council Resolution 1441 along with France, Germany, and every other voting member of the UN Security Council. It was a unanimous vote. Do I need to post a link to UN Security Council Reslolution 1441 again for you to read? You obviously did not read it last time. Either educate yourself on the subject or refrain from making uneducated comments on the subject. I do encourage you to educate yourself on the subject by reading as many reputable sources on the subject as you can. You should start with the UN website archives to read all 12 years of resolutions on the subject. That should keep you busy for a while. When you are finished feel free to comment on how impatient the US has been with Iraq. Had enough?
  by: tomblik     02/10/2004 08:58 PM     
"For 2003, Russian oil production averaged about 8.4 million bbl/d, with consumption of 2.7 million bbl/d and net exports of 5.8 million bbl/d."

Chechnya is part of Russia: (I know that the stereotypical American has trouble with geography but should know that Iraq is not part of the US.)

Chechen terrorists bomb Russia.

Iraq did not have links with Al-Qaeda.

Note, this site is a bit out of date, but no new credible evidence has arisen except to further distance Saddam from Al-Qaeda.
  by: jendres     02/11/2004 01:17 AM     
  Re: How about  
You are so far out there that it is almost comical. Iraq *did* dismantle all it's weapons - UN inspectors concluded that as far back as in 1995. Haven't you been listening to ANY of the weapons inspectors?

Why did the US wait 12 years and then go to war against the will of virtually every other nation on the planet? And speaking of breaking UN resolutions, why didn't they go to war with Israel first?

> Posting some evidentiary links to your claims, Necralis. That would help.

You mean like Bush gave the world compelling evidence of his claims that Iraq had WMD and that Saddam hussein was an imminent threat to the US?

And as for hiding behind a desperate excuse that it was the UN who somehow, indirectly, caused the war, please do not forget that the UN voted massively against a second Gulf war. Nobody wanted it except Bush.

> Russia voted yes to UN Security Council Resolution 1441 along with France, Germany, and every other voting member of the UN Security Council. It was a unanimous vote. Do I need to post a link to UN Security Council Reslolution 1441 again for you to read?

Perhaps you should read it buddy. 1441 expressly said that while there would be "consequences" if Iraq failed to comply with UN resolutions, 1441 did not sanction any type of military action against Iraq. You think Germany and France would have voted for 1441 otherwise? But none of that mattered - the US wanted that war no matter what.

It seems fairly clear to most people that Dubya used the might of the US military to get some payback from whatever he felt Saddam had done to his "daddy" (Dubya doesn't speak adult english). You can be as patriotic about it as you like, but don't be blind to the facts.

  by: mberg     02/11/2004 03:19 AM     
  @Necralis, jendres, mberg  
Well done guys. I missed this little discussion but you guys did it better than I ever could.
With a certain right-wing nutter, who shall remain nameless, now banned from SN, perhaps us bleeding-heart liberal lefties can take the place over! lol, j/k of course.
  by: stephen.mcmahon     02/11/2004 04:21 AM     
Not hardly Stephen. I will be responding to all posts. Oh, and Jendres, you of all people should realize that I am a very well read individual with well informed opinions. However, I never said that Chechnya was not a part of Russia. If you are going to attack me, at least make sure that you have read my posts before insinuating (is that a big word for you?) that I am somehow unaware of basic geography. Look for my post tomorrow for a complete response to the above postings. Not banned. Still here. Talk to you in the morning.

  by: tomblik     02/11/2004 05:37 AM     
Here it is Jendres. Your first blind attack on me should have been directed at sbenglish. He pointed at Russia's dependence on Iraqi oil contracts as one of their reasons for changing sides on the war in Iraq. However, since the hammer has been dropped I will respond anyway. Read this:
It is dated before several months before the shock and awe campaign began. It outlines the Russian opposition to war in Iraq based on oil investments and contracts that were endangered by the fall of Saddamm. Here is another link that you may find more interesting:
As you can see from these two sources, oil didn't have a damn thing to do with Russia's decision to oppose the removal of Saddamm (just a hint of sarcasm there). You see Jendres, the source you linked to had nothing at all to do with the conflict with Saddamm, and it has nothing to do with Russia's foriegn oil contracts. I have already tackled the "Chechnya is a part of Russia" attack, but it bears reitteration. I never said that Chechnya was not a part of Russia. Before you insinuate that I am not aware of basic geography you should read my posts thoroughly to see if I made any eronious geographical claims. If you assume that I know nothing about geography you make yourself look like a dumb@ss. That is twice now that you have attacked me over something that I said nothing about. Maybe you should attend a remedial reading class so that you can be sure that you flame the right person. I also never said that Chechnyan terrorists weren't active in Russia. In the future, you should only attack things that I have actually said instead of things that you imagine I have said. Try not to let it happen again or I will have to expose you as the fool that you are. On to al-Qaeda now. Bill Clinton believed in a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda in 1998. He even bombed Iraq with that connection in mind. Try this on for size. It will most likely fit.
Maybe this will help open your eyes.
And more recently,
If there isn't a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, why are their footprints all over the place? Try again, Jendres. Your arguement this time is full of holes.
Now I need to talk to mberg. There has been absolutely no evidence that Iraq disarmed by 1995 except Saddamm's word which hasn't been trustworthy at all. One of the conditions of surrender in '91 was that the UN would have "unfettered" access for inspections that would verify Iraq's complience with the surrender. Iraq never did that while Saddamm was in power. The reason that the US agreed to UN inspections in the first place was so that there could be an independent assessment of Iraq's compliance. As to your "nobody wanted it except Bush" claim, Bush didn't want it either. That is why even he agreed to give Saddamm one last chance. Saddamm failed to comply with the UN and a coalition formed to remove Saddamm. This action to remove Saddamm may have been US led, but lets have a roll call of the countries involved.
the Czech Republic
El Salvador
South Korea
the Netherlands
the Philippines
United Kingdom
Oh ok. I see now. Only Bush wanted Saddamm out. The 30 countries involved from every settled continent do not constitute an international commitment to consequences. I know that mberg and jendres hate Bush. I know that they want him gone, but if they are going to make an arguement for their case they should try to plug the holes before they try to float it. Stephen, my man, maybe you should have responded. It might have been more fun that way. By the way guys, try not to respond with anger. It will cloud your arguement and you won't be able to see all of the holes that need to be plugged. Have a good day.
  by: tomblik     02/11/2004 03:11 PM     
Wow man, you won your argument by listing a load of countries. Nice work!
  by: stephen.mcmahon     02/11/2004 03:21 PM     
I really have to thank tomblik for his great posts that made me smile.
Posting a list of countries that supported the US. Checking the list it's easy to see why most supported and it has NOTHING to do with wanting to get rid of Saddam, only getting into Bush's good graces.
Lets exclude those shall we?
* Former soviet and eastern block contries that want support and protection from Russian dependence and want to be seen as western and join NATO.
* Third world countries that are dependent or now will get more aid from the US.
* Close military allies that agrees with whatever the US says (like GB and SK)
* Countries that hates Iraq (like Turkey, Kuwait & Israel)

How many are now left in your list, ie, how many supported the war for one of the US stated reasons and now check to see how many countries in the UN was against it...

Funny that you managed to avoid Israel in your liest of countries, this also made me smile. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that your first post referred to UN resolutions and the fact that, even with US veto protection, Israel are right now disobeying many more resolutions than Iraw ever did. Guess you wouldn't want to highlight that Bush gives them billions while invading Iraq for the same reason (breaking resolutions since the WMD was BS as I'm sure Bush knew as well).

It's even more funny when you consider that Bush claimed the WMD as a reason while giving aid to a close neighbour for developing the same. Iraq never had the means to threaten the US, no reports have ever claimed that he could.

Personally I was for the war because I wanted Saddam out, but the reasons posted here are great. I understand that a politician can't be honest and say "Let's invade because I dislike the guy and it will give us safe access to his oil" and instead have to lie. Guess the people like tomblik either works for the US state department, sees himself as a true patriot in need of ALWAYS defending his country or they just can't accept that they bought lies and are trying to protect their self-perception as non gullible.
  by: aljo4025   02/11/2004 04:53 PM     
  I see how it is  
Maybe some of you (i.e. aljo or stephen) are always going to attack my stand and that is just fine with me. However, this is the second time someone has accused me of being a federal plant. If I am indeed a member of the CIA as once was suggested, or now as a member of the State Department I want my Federal paycheck and benefits. To date I have not received a paycheck or benefits package from the Federal government. Those types of attacks (personal attacks) happen when the attacker realizes that their intellectual arguement is erroding. I would encourage those of you who choose this type of attack to avoid accusing me of such idiocy, to refrain from accusing me of being a member of any federal organization because those accusations only give me a sense of pride. They do not hurt my feelings or tear down my arguement. I am person who believes in the institution of the Presidency of the United States of America. There have been times when I was ashamed of my government. Let it be known that of those times that I have felt shame it has been when a liberal was our Commander in Chief. Aljo, I would like you to post links to the evidence that proves that any member of the Coalition of the Willing joined for any other reason that the removal of Saddamm. You see without any supporting documentation your arguement has no credence. You can get back to me on that one. As to your idea that I somehow didn't include Israel on that list, I would like to point out that the US specifically asked Israel not to be a member of the coalition. You see, since most governments in the Muslim world want Israel to disappear, it wouldn't be a good idea to have Israeli soldiers traipsing around in Iraq. If you are a student of history at all you will remember that during the first Gulf War Israel was asked to remain on the sidelines then as well. Here is a link to the ever growning list of members of the Coalitoin of the Willing:
One thing that you need to consider when you mention WMD is that Bush never claimed there were stockpiles of WMD. In 2 State of the Union addresses, Bush said that there were stockpiles of supplies necessary to create WMD and equipment to do so. Here are the links:
Will you do me the courtesy of not believing everything you read or hear. When you blindly believe that Bush said stockpiles of WMD you insult your own intelligence.
  by: tomblik     02/11/2004 08:56 PM     
  Not everything is about you.  
Mate, I never said you were stupid. (In fact I think I may have previously said you appear to be above-average intelligence). Re-read my comment, I said, "even if the _stereo-typical_ american is geographically challenged". The stereo-typical aussie wears a cork-hat. I'm an aussie. I don't wear a cork-hat. In fact, no-one I know wears one.

My comment was not an "attack". It was the supporting links you requested of Necralis.

Stephen wasn't talking about you being banned. I'm not certain which right-wing individual in particular he was referring too either, as there have been a couple.

I know that Russia had contracts with iraq. But isn't that the argument here? That this was what the war was really about, oil. Providing access for the US, denying access to others.

To be honest I get tired of trying to read your rambling comments.
  by: jendres     02/12/2004 03:44 AM     
While I have never claimed to be a member of MENSA, I am bright enough to recognize insinuation when I read it. I have said before and I will say again, if America was in this for the oil, what was Kuwait in it for? They have their own oil. Also, if it was for oil, why didn't the US just keep the oil fields in Kuwait after the first Gulf War? In fact, we took them from Saddamm, put out the fires (it took nearly a year to do so) and then gave those fields back to Kuwait, and if I am not terribly mistaken all paid for by US taxpayers. Russia had lucrative oil production contracts with Iraq along with France and Germany. These 3 countries were most vocal about their opposition to the war, but their oil motivation while clear to nearly anyone with half a brain is never considered. Instead they are painted as great white knights (not a racial reference. it is a literary reference.). Not everything the US does is about oil. Try Serbia for instance. That shithole has nothting the US can't get elsewhere. Think about Germany's agression in WWI and WWII. There isn't oil there. We went anyway. Don't you realize that the US is an oil producing nation as well. In fact, Bush is calling for increased US oil production in order to decrease our reliance on foreign oil. You are right on one point. Everything is not about me. Maybe you should tell stephen and aljo becuase they seem to think it is.
  by: tomblik     02/12/2004 02:24 PM     
  Where is all of this cheap oil?  
Considering that the US took down this dictator for oil, my question is where is it? I am paying more for oil and gasoline than before the war.
  by: darrengs   02/12/2004 07:05 PM     
  Come on - look at who this comes from.  
Like we should believe anything the Russians say - with there special self serving interest that was at stake. What we do know is all intelligence sources, along with previous administrations, including Clinton-Gore, congress, the other many coalition countries and their sources, all pointed towards WMDs existing and in further production in IRAQ. Whether they were destroyed, still in hiding in IRAQ, or moved elsewhere should not be in question. If it took us almost 10 months to find Saddam hiding like a rat in a hole in the ground, would it not take much longer to find something much smaller than Saddam such as vials of Ricin, liters of chemicals/poisons, and any other WMDs? We must realize that we might not ever find them, it does not mean or prove that Pres Bush, Congress, Clinton-Gore, and any others lied or misled us.

  by: cotton   02/13/2004 09:40 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: