TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Weapons Inspectors in Iraq

Weapons Inspectors in Iraq

One thing that none of us ever seem to be discusing is the actual inspectors in Iraq, many hi level officials both in the U.S and other area's think that the inspectors are a sham, incapable of doing a good job. And while I'm no expert on them or weapons inspecting, it does seem awfully strange that they keep on visiting the same factories over and over again, and not spending much if any time at the diffrent Presidential Palaces, where many believe any weapons Iraq has are stored.

Anyways who here things Iraq really is clean? If not, where would you search for them, and who do you blame for them not beind discovered?

the USA says they know for a fact that there's weapons hidden. ok fine, just say where they are and the inspectors will find them. but this isn't the case, this then leaves us with two options,

1- the USA is lying and there's no such thing as WMD, thats why the inspectors aren't finding anything,

or

2- the USA isn't lying, they know where they are but aren't telling because the want a war with Iraq.

I think number 2 is whats happening.

I agree with ahlamalek & I think that the US should clarify their position because right now the seem like blood-thirsty warmongers to the rest of the world. I think we all agree that if Iraq posseses weapons of mass destruction then they should be destroyed, but it is better for it to be done peacefully. Let's not forget that the Iraqi ppl have suffered a lot in the last years with the embargo & everything.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek the USA says they know for a fact that there's weapons hidden. ok fine, just say where they are and the inspectors will find them. but this isn't the case, this then leaves us with two options, 1- the USA is lying and there's no such thing as WMD, thats why the inspectors aren't finding anything, or 2- the USA isn't lying, they know where they are but aren't telling because the want a war with Iraq. I think number 2 is whats happening.

So, picture this..... if we know about the weapons and tell everyone about it what happens to our intelligence sources? You give them away, you will lose everything. I honestly want to see this evidence before we send our troops in, but I also know it is not always wise to divulge sensitive information to please the masses. I think every government and person over the IQ of 30 should know this as well.

i don't want to know where Saddam hid his weapons, I want the inspectors to know, the US must give this info to them.

You know...If I were Saddam, I would divulge the truth about everything. "We have this, that, this and of course that." Then, and only then, would I love to see how the US Gov. would react to Iraq coming clean. If we take this a step further, whereby Saddam would actual disarm his WMD, I'd like to know if the US would step back and commend him for doing so, or would they find other issues, enabling them to go to war to overthrow his regime.

How do you find out if a country is war hungry? By cooperating with all their and the UN's demands (and then some), and see if this appeases them. If they continue, then you know they're up to no good.

We'll see.
TP

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek i don't want to know where Saddam hid his weapons, I want the inspectors to know, the US must give this info to them.

i do see your point, and I agree.. they (the insepectors should know) where they are. however, again if some information is divulged it can be traced back to its source. if the US tells the inspectors that weapon x is here and only 10 people know about weapon x being at that location, it would be quite simple to figure out who is talking.

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Plant You know...If I were Saddam, I would divulge the truth about everything. "We have this, that, this and of course that." Then, and only then, would I love to see how the US Gov. would react to Iraq coming clean. If we take this a step further, whereby Saddam would actual disarm his WMD, I'd like to know if the US would step back and commend him for doing so, or would they find other issues, enabling them to go to war to overthrow his regime. How do you find out if a country is war hungry? By cooperating with all their and the UN's demands (and then some), and see if this appeases them. If they continue, then you know they're up to no good. We'll see. TP

I would like to know how we would respond too... hopefully we do back off........ more importantly, I hope Bush doesnt win the next election id rather see hillary clinton in office than bush for another term

quote:

Originally posted by intrinsic id rather see hillary clinton in office than bush for another term

hehe i saw hillary last night on Hardball with Chris Matthews (on his college tour, i think they were at U of Albany) honestly i wanna say i wasnt at all impressed with her. she seemed to just be pamdering both sides (something her husband was excellent at doing) without really giving any real solutions to the problems she was asked about.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy hehe i saw hillary last night on Hardball with Chris Matthews (on his college tour, i think they were at U of Albany) honestly i wanna say i wasnt at all impressed with her. she seemed to just be pamdering both sides (something her husband was excellent at doing) without really giving any real solutions to the problems she was asked about.

im not that impressed with her either, but she would 10 times better than Bush...... i just wish colin powell would run for president, on a democrat ticket of course

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Plant You know...If I were Saddam, I would divulge the truth about everything. "We have this, that, this and of course that." Then, and only then, would I love to see how the US Gov. would react to Iraq coming clean. If we take this a step further, whereby Saddam would actual disarm his WMD, I'd like to know if the US would step back and commend him for doing so, or would they find other issues, enabling them to go to war to overthrow his regime. How do you find out if a country is war hungry? By cooperating with all their and the UN's demands (and then some), and see if this appeases them. If they continue, then you know they're up to no good. We'll see. TP

actually, saddam accepted that any place in Iraq could be visited without any restriction. we're not that far from the situation you're actually describing... inspectors are inspecting and there's nothing.

do you remember when there was all this media buzz about iraq accepting inspection, and then the US and UK saying right away, this doesn't matter because there will be war bla bla... i mean for Christ's sake go find the weapons and disearm, do you have to make war at all cost??

That's my point exactly! Sadam said that the inspectors will be free to visit anything they want & so far I have heard no complains that they're obstructed in anyway. So I don't see the reason to go to war. If the US or Britain know sth more they should share it with the inspectors so they can get a clear picture of the situation.

quote:

Originally posted by Typhoon That's my point exactly! Sadam said that the inspectors will be free to visit anything they want & so far I have heard no complains that they're obstructed in anyway. So I don't see the reason to go to war. If the US or Britain know sth more they should share it with the inspectors so they can get a clear picture of the situation.

old news on sharing info.....

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/21/ot...eaux/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/21/sp...bush/index.html

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek 2- the USA isn't lying, they know where they are but aren't telling because the want a war with Iraq. I think number 2 is whats happening.

See the whole problem with this theory, is that the U.S does want war with iraq, and the sooner they hand over proof, the sooner they can get there war on.

Additionally Sadamn hasn't intervened with the weapons inspectors because among other things there searching the wrong places. Everywhere, except his palaces.

they did go into at least one palace (I'm 100% about this...), the others i don't know... yet

quote:

Originally posted by Nadi See the whole problem with this theory, is that the U.S does want war with iraq, and the sooner they hand over proof, the sooner they can get there war on.

to the contrary my friend, the sooner they hand over the info, the sooner saddam will be disarmed and then no war.

true motives... from the horse's mouth

Powell: US will develop Iraqi oil
CAMERON SIMPSON
THE US said yesterday that it plans to secure Iraqi oilfields if it invades the country and it is looking at the possibility of using oil production to pay for post-war reconstruction.

However, last night it was warned that it would "reap a terrible whirlwind" if it went ahead with this strategy in a second Gulf war.

Colin Powell, the US secretary of state,told NBC's Meet the Press: "The oilfields are the property of the Iraqi people. And if the coalition of forces goes into those oil fields, we would want to protect those fields and make sure they are used to benefit the people of Iraq and are not destroyed or damaged by the failing regime on the way out the door."

Mr Powell said that revenue generated from the oilfields would be used "in accordance with international law and to benefit the people of Iraq".

Administration officials also say they planned to keep the United Nations oil-for-food programme running, at least temporarily, to ensure that post-invasion oil dollars are spent on the country's basic needs.

International oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, and Shell would want to take part in any rehabilitation of the country's oil industry, analysts said.

However, as the Bush administration neared a decision on whether to take military action to eliminate Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, Mr Powell said it was seeking a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis with North Korea.

The apparent inconsistency in US foreign policy towards Iraq was seized upon by George Galloway, Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin. He said: "The point of the invasion is to steal Iraq's oil. This is naked confirmation that they intend to seize it, ramp up production, and thus cut the price of oil.

"They are no longer hiding the purpose of aggression, and they are fooling themselves if they think they are fooling the Arab population. I am speaking from Egypt, where a US state department poll has just revealed that only 6% of Egyptians have a favourable view of the United States. They are going to reap a terrible whirlwind from all of this."

Iraq sits on top of the world's second largest oil reserves, but war and a decade of sanctions has withered its oil infrastructure and official exports. The Bush administration is carefully weighing how oil policy in a post-Saddam Iraq might affect oil prices, officials say. Its decision could have implications for the fragile global economy.

Increasing Iraqi oil production may help Western nations that consume oil, including the US, by lowering oil prices. However, it could hurt key US oil-producing allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, by reducing their revenues from oil sales.

As UN arms experts searched four suspect sites in Iraq, Washington signalled it was increasing the pressure on Baghdad by sending more troops, aircraft. and ships to the Gulf.

US officials said Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, had signed an order to move thousands of troops, dozens of strike aircraft and probably two more aircraft carrier battle groups to the Gulf, starting early next month.

The deployment would at least double the 50,000 US military personnel already near Iraq, and more might be sent in February, US officials said.

US and British warplanes yesterday attacked two Iraqi radar sites after Iraqi forces moved them into the southern "no-fly" zone, the US central command said, adding that the radar system posed a threat to allied patrols over the zone.

More than 100 UN weapons inspectors are now in Iraq, but the 200 searches they have carried out since November 27 have apparently uncovered no trace of the chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programmes Washington insists Iraq is pursuing.

Mr Powell, indicating frustration with the inspectors' slow progress, said: "I think that this can't go on indefinitely. The president has not made a decision yet with respect to the use of military force or with respect to going back to the United Nations.

"Of course we're positioning ourselves - positioning our military forces for whatever might be required."

Editorial comment

Korean crisis

-Dec 30th

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/arc...02-1-15-53.html

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek to the contrary my friend, the sooner they hand over the info, the sooner saddam will be disarmed and then no war.

Doesnt the current resolution state that at this point in time(iraq has given its formal declaration to the U.N) any wmd found are a "material breach" and "grounds for war"? If nothing is found Bush can't do anything without pissing off the rest of the international community more than he's willing to.

That was my understanding, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong :P

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek Colin Powell, the US secretary of state,told NBC's Meet the Press: "The oilfields are the property of the Iraqi people. And if the coalition of forces goes into those oil fields, we would want to protect those fields and make sure they are used to benefit the people of Iraq and are not destroyed or damaged by the failing regime on the way out the door." Mr Powell said that revenue generated from the oilfields would be used "in accordance with international law and to benefit the people of Iraq". http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/arc...02-1-15-53.html

sounds like a nice guy that powell character

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek true motives... from the horse's mouth Powell: US will develop Iraqi oil CAMERON SIMPSON THE US said yesterday that it plans to secure Iraqi oilfields if it invades the country and it is looking at the possibility of using oil production to pay for post-war reconstruction. However, last night it was warned that it would "reap a terrible whirlwind" if it went ahead with this strategy in a second Gulf war. Colin Powell, the US secretary of state,told NBC's Meet the Press: "The oilfields are the property of the Iraqi people. And if the coalition of forces goes into those oil fields, we would want to protect those fields and make sure they are used to benefit the people of Iraq and are not destroyed or damaged by the failing regime on the way out the door." Mr Powell said that revenue generated from the oilfields would be used "in accordance with international law and to benefit the people of Iraq". Administration officials also say they planned to keep the United Nations oil-for-food programme running, at least temporarily, to ensure that post-invasion oil dollars are spent on the country's basic needs. International oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, and Shell would want to take part in any rehabilitation of the country's oil industry, analysts said. However, as the Bush administration neared a decision on whether to take military action to eliminate Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, Mr Powell said it was seeking a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis with North Korea. The apparent inconsistency in US foreign policy towards Iraq was seized upon by George Galloway, Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin. He said: "The point of the invasion is to steal Iraq's oil. This is naked confirmation that they intend to seize it, ramp up production, and thus cut the price of oil. "They are no longer hiding the purpose of aggression, and they are fooling themselves if they think they are fooling the Arab population. I am speaking from Egypt, where a US state department poll has just revealed that only 6% of Egyptians have a favourable view of the United States. They are going to reap a terrible whirlwind from all of this." Iraq sits on top of the world's second largest oil reserves, but war and a decade of sanctions has withered its oil infrastructure and official exports. The Bush administration is carefully weighing how oil policy in a post-Saddam Iraq might affect oil prices, officials say. Its decision could have implications for the fragile global economy. Increasing Iraqi oil production may help Western nations that consume oil, including the US, by lowering oil prices. However, it could hurt key US oil-producing allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, by reducing their revenues from oil sales. As UN arms experts searched four suspect sites in Iraq, Washington signalled it was increasing the pressure on Baghdad by sending more troops, aircraft. and ships to the Gulf. US officials said Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, had signed an order to move thousands of troops, dozens of strike aircraft and probably two more aircraft carrier battle groups to the Gulf, starting early next month. The deployment would at least double the 50,000 US military personnel already near Iraq, and more might be sent in February, US officials said. US and British warplanes yesterday attacked two Iraqi radar sites after Iraqi forces moved them into the southern "no-fly" zone, the US central command said, adding that the radar system posed a threat to allied patrols over the zone. More than 100 UN weapons inspectors are now in Iraq, but the 200 searches they have carried out since November 27 have apparently uncovered no trace of the chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programmes Washington insists Iraq is pursuing. Mr Powell, indicating frustration with the inspectors' slow progress, said: "I think that this can't go on indefinitely. The president has not made a decision yet with respect to the use of military force or with respect to going back to the United Nations. "Of course we're positioning ourselves - positioning our military forces for whatever might be required." Editorial comment Korean crisis -Dec 30th http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/arc...02-1-15-53.html

I think what Powell said about the oil being that of the Iraqi's is a bunch of BULLCROCK!!...The US government will control it to their benefit.

be it nice guy or not, time will tell what will happen. and I sense that Powell isn't a heavy weight in the Bush administration compared to Cheney and Rumsfeld.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek the USA says they know for a fact that there's weapons hidden. ok fine, just say where they are and the inspectors will find them. but this isn't the case, this then leaves us with two options, 1- the USA is lying and there's no such thing as WMD, thats why the inspectors aren't finding anything, or 2- the USA isn't lying, they know where they are but aren't telling because the want a war with Iraq. I think number 2 is whats happening.

Totally Agree!

quote:

Originally posted by intrinsic i just wish colin powell would run for president, on a democrat ticket of course

He has a pretty dubious past.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.