TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- UN inspections are a joke

UN inspections are a joke

If Iraq can lie and still hide things from the inspectors why are we even bothering? Why waste the time? It is just a matter of time before Iraq builds up (or may already have) a bunch of weapons of mass destruction and attacks someone.

Can someone please tell me what these inspections are doing? Are they really making any progress?

I'm scared for the safety of my family, especially after reading about all the American haters here.

Calm the fuck down man!
Iraq pose no threat to your personal safety or your families.....
There is actual very little proof Iraq have any serious amount of chemical or biological weapons, or is stockpiling them for future use.....
if you want to be worried about something, be worried about the fact North Korea is moving weapons grade plutonium ready to make at least 6 nuclear weapons, and the US Army in korea have requested reinforcements.
Now looks where Iraq is, and look where North Korea is.
Now find out who your government representative is, and giving him hell about it!

Also think on this, going on the premise Saddam has got any weapons of mass destruction what do you think he wants to do with them? Hit American and it�s allies in a strike of anger and inevitably get a pasting or reek havoc and terror in the middle east/gulf in a bid for power?

Saddam is like a wasp, if you leave it alone it'll leave you alone and you won't get stung. If you flap and scream about you can garuntee the wasp will sting you.

quote:

Originally posted by Az There is actual very little proof Iraq have any serious amount of chemical or biological weapons, or is stockpiling them for future use.....

I'll just talk about this point because it's so blatantly wrong. At the Security Council hearings in 1991, Sadam admitted to having a chemical and biological weapons program Currently he has changed his claim saying that he doesn't have one. All we have asked him to do is explain what has happened to the multitudes of products he had already produced back then AND THIS WAS 12 FUCKING YEARS AGO! Imagine what he could have now. It is also a widely known fact that he used chemical agents on his own people prior to that.

Please do not say that he does not have chemical/biological weapons program. Nearly every country (including France, China, Germany, etc. who are asking for more inspections) agrees that he does, which is why the UN resolution was was passed in the very begging back in 1991. If this wasn't the case, then why would the Security Council agree to a resolution to disarm Iraw of weapons that didn't exist?? Another fact, the weapons inspectors, prior to UN Resolution 1441 had found some of his stockpiles and were successful in destroying a large amount of chemical and biological products... even more than our bombings ever did. The only thing that people disagree on is how to go about dealing with it now, either invade or continue to go through weapons inspections. Again, please do not try to argue that Iraq does not have a chemical/biological program because its a widely known fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor [COLOR=#808080]Also think on this, going on the premise Saddam has got any weapons of mass destruction what do you think he wants to do with them? Hit American and it�s allies in a strike of anger and inevitably get a pasting or reek havoc and terror in the middle east/gulf in a bid for power?

The truth of the matter is that we don't know... and I really don't feel like finding out what someone with a track record like his will do if he did develop nukes. It's scary enough what he has done with chemical weapons, but nuclear weapons are a totally different thing. Realistically, he could roam over the Middle East doing whatever he pleases.

quote:

Saddam is like a wasp, if you leave it alone it'll leave you alone and you won't get stung. If you flap and scream about you can garuntee the wasp will sting you.

They said the same thing about Hitler when he remilitarized all of Germany even though it was striclty forbidden in the Treaty of Versailles. Everyone said the same thing when he took the Rheinland back. They still said he was harmless as long as we gave him the Sudetenland. He was still a good guy after he invaded Czechoslovakia. I mean what's wrong with a little Lebensraum? Not before the UK and France finally decided to put their foot down after he took Poland, did people really realize how dangerous he was. I think you can draw the parallels for yourself.

And the argument that he hasn't attacked anyone like Hitler did is fairly useless so please don't contend that. Back then, the only kind of attack that could be mounted was a conventional one, from which you could retreat and rebuild your forces to counterattack. In this era, the first move could wipe out an entire country, so the burden is put on those who have the power... to prevent that sort of strike from ever happening.

quote:

Originally posted by stringfelowhawk Again, please do not try to argue that Iraq does not have a chemical/biological program because its a widely known fact.

There is no evidence that the program has been active since 1998, and many of the weapons he had in 91 are now completely useless.
Yes Saddam did use Chemical Agents on his people, but who sold him the Chemical Agents? and did these people know he was using them against his own people? not at first, but when they found out, they sold him even more!
wonder who I could be talking about?

quote:

Originally posted by Az There is no evidence that the program has been active since 1998, and many of the weapons he had in 91 are now completely useless. Yes Saddam did use Chemical Agents on his people, but who sold him the Chemical Agents? and did these people know he was using them against his own people? not at first, but when they found out, they sold him even more! wonder who I could be talking about?

Ok, going with the assumption you presented that this program has not been active since 1998, please answer me one question. What happened to the mass amounts of chemicals (that the entire international community recognized) he had before 1998? Did he destroy them, stockpile them somewhere, or what?? That's all the US and the UN has asked and that is exactly what Iraq has failed to do. If you can answer me that question I'll be content. In order to do so you would know more than most leaders around the world, ie why the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 in 2002 (hint, after 1998).

As for who sold them chemicals, I'm not sure if you are just hypothesizing or if you have something to base it on, I sure would like to see it.

quote:

Originally posted by stringfelowhawk As for who sold them chemicals, I'm not sure if you are just hypothesizing or if you have something to base it on, I sure would like to see it.

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/896
the British sold them the Antidote

quote:

Originally posted by Az http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/896 the British sold them the Antidote

Ok, good point. It is interesting how we fuck up in the past and it comes back to bite us in the asses. Same with us training Osama Bin Laden.

What in regards to my other question?

quote:

Originally posted by stringfelowhawk Ok, good point. It is interesting how we fuck up in the past and it comes back to bite us in the asses. Same with us training Osama Bin Laden. What in regards to my other question?

Well I'm not denying that Saddam does have a Chemical Weapons program, because he obviously does, but you have to look at why France, Germany etc.. are opposed to the war.
Saddams chemical and biological weapons stocks are thought to be negligable, many of which havent been touched since the Gulf War.
And especially with the current North Korea situation, we have to ascertain which is the biggest threat. Saddam, who has no nuclear program of any worth, and a negligable chemical weapons program, or North Korea, who, according to leaked satellite photo's, are moving weapons grade plutonium ready for the construction of Nuclear Missiles.
I certainly know which poses me the greatest threat.......
does that answer your other question?

quote:

Originally posted by Az Well I'm not denying that Saddam does have a Chemical Weapons program, because he obviously does, but you have to look at why France, Germany etc.. are opposed to the war. Saddams chemical and biological weapons stocks are thought to be negligable, many of which havent been touched since the Gulf War. And especially with the current North Korea situation, we have to ascertain which is the biggest threat. Saddam, who has no nuclear program of any worth, and a negligable chemical weapons program, or North Korea, who, according to leaked satellite photo's, are moving weapons grade plutonium ready for the construction of Nuclear Missiles. I certainly know which poses me the greatest threat....... does that answer your other question?

Honestly that doesn't answer my question. The UN passed their resolutions for a reason, we didn't just make them up for no reason or to make ourselves feel better about each other. We did it because it is a dangerous issue that needs to be dealt with. I think if for nothing else, we need to enforce this on Iraq to maintain legitimacy of the UN. If not, what the fuck is the point of all these discussions. We're gonna sit there, make up a plan to make the world safer, but then never do anything about when people like Sadam continue to weasel out of his responsibilities. What good is the UN if we allow that to go on?

N. Korea is definitely a problem building that needs to be dealt with (which we can discuss in another thread if you like cuz we seem to be in agreement). But the way to get there isn't to drop a legitimate case with someone who has spit in the face of the UN time and time again simply because there is a growing threat in a different part of the world. You deal with the problem at hand and then go from there.

Just the fact that the U.S. and it's few allies has to actually convince the rest (majority) of the international community makes a war against Iraq under current circumstances quite dodgy in my opinion. Powells evidence, presented infront of the UN yesterday, didn't convince a lot of people either. Except those who where already convinced of course. The U.S. view of a situation is not necessarily always the correct one .

As for the chemical/biological weapons. As mentioned by Az, these weapons have quite the limited life span. And this life span is very dependent on the quality of the production process, which experts say was pretty bad in Iraq anyways. I can't find the link where I read that but if I find it i'll post it here. This would imply that the odds for any functional chemical/biological weapons in Iraq would be rather small. Pretty much confirmed by the fact that the inspectors have yet to find any trace of it.

The implications of a war against Iraq, increased terrorism, massive amounts of refugees, probability of a longwinding occupation and perhaps tens of thousands of killed speak for trying to find alternatives to war IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by stringfelowhawk Honestly that doesn't answer my question. The UN passed their resolutions for a reason, we didn't just make them up for no reason or to make ourselves feel better about each other. We did it because it is a dangerous issue that needs to be dealt with. I think if for nothing else, we need to enforce this on Iraq to maintain legitimacy of the UN. If not, what the fuck is the point of all these discussions. We're gonna sit there, make up a plan to make the world safer, but then never do anything about when people like Sadam continue to weasel out of his responsibilities. What good is the UN if we allow that to go on?

11 of the 15 countries feel the resolution from November 2002 isn't good enough, and a new resolution needs to be in place by the end of february......

Reports are that one Iraqi scientist has agreed to be interviewed privately and I have a feeling (maybe just a naive hope) Iraq will bend on the issue of U2 spy plane flights.

But unless DRASTIC action is taken on the part of Iraq than it looks like endgame after all.

honestly, i think i agree with france's position about all of this. we do need to send in more troops to make sure there are no smoking guns in iraq. i say about 200,000 of them, in uniform, with weapons

quote:

Originally posted by stringfelowhawk You deal with the problem at hand and then go from there.

oh, really.


then what's the deal with osama bin laden?

"osama---who?" you say?

yes, indeed. what about osama bin laden? what about al-qaeda? what about the WTC tragedy?

OOPS!!!! forgot!

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode oh, really. then what's the deal with osama bin laden? "osama---who?" you say? yes, indeed. what about osama bin laden? what about al-qaeda? what about the WTC tragedy? OOPS!!!! forgot!

what about him? do you think the US has forgotten about him? do you think they are not still actively trying to seek him (or his remains) out? do you think the US just folded its bag and said its already won?

quote:

Originally posted by stringfelowhawk The truth of the matter is that we don't know... and I really don't feel like finding out what someone with a track record like his will do if he did develop nukes. It's scary enough what he has done with chemical weapons, but nuclear weapons are a totally different thing. Realistically, he could roam over the Middle East doing whatever he pleases.

The truth of the matter is, he wouldn�t be stupid enough to attack any western country. As nasty a character as he is, I�ll give him his due, he�s not a complete fool. Unless he has a big enough nuclear arsenal to wipe out major targets in every western country and the traditional military power to fight remaining troops he has absolutely NO CHANCE against the west. Simple, I know this, he knows this and the military strategists know this. Hell, everyone with a few brain cells knows this. If you realistically think that Saddam has the resources to defeat the west combined then you are truly misguided.

So that rules out a full-scale nuclear attack. What about an odd aggression strike, a strike of anger to kill some civilians and destroy a few major cities? Again this is a terrible tactical move. Yes he�d have the satisfaction of the destruction of one or more cities but he�ll not be able to cope with the reaction. If that happened Iraq would be wiped from the map. Literally. The retaliatory strike would be so powerful that the Saddam regime would be destroyed overnight. Either that or it triggers a full-scale world wide nuclear war. And everyone knows the outcome of that. No one wins, not Saddam or anyone.

So what is the most viable option for Saddam? Use the few nukes he could develop to rise to power in the Middle East or in anger, strike at the West, knowing full well that it would result either in the complete destruction of him and his regime or plunge the world into a nuclear war? And I do not accept �But Saddam is an Evil Mad Man dictator, of course he�ll want to get back at the West. Even if it means his destruction!� as a valid argument. People need to get out of the mind set that we are up against the James Bond Villains who sit in their secret lair and plot the demise and destruction of the world because they think it�s fun or have a chip on their shoulder. Sure there are loads of unscrupulous people but all they are interested in power. Pure and simple. Gaining control of the Middle East will grand Saddam power, an anger strike at the west will not.

quote:

They said the same thing about Hitler when he remilitarized all of Germany even though it was striclty forbidden in the Treaty of Versailles. Everyone said the same thing when he took the Rheinland back. They still said he was harmless as long as we gave him the Sudetenland. He was still a good guy after he invaded Czechoslovakia. I mean what's wrong with a little Lebensraum? Not before the UK and France finally decided to put their foot down after he took Poland, did people really realize how dangerous he was. I think you can draw the parallels for yourself.

If you know so much bout the history of World War II as you claim to do then you will know that the history of Europe and the history of the Middle East are not as easily comparable as you would like them to be. Hitler plain and simple had a grudge, and the power to back that grudge up. The allied nations, particularly France, had imposed such strict sanctions on Germany thought the Treaty of Versailles that the nation was falling apart. It was crippling them. For f**ks sake, if the Treaty of Versailles was still in place GERMANY AND HER PEOPLE WOULD STILL BE PAYING THE REPARATIONS TO THIS VERY DAY. In fact, they�d still be a very long way off paying them. The terms of the Treaty of Versailles were totally unfair, and had they been more balanced, latter history would be vastly different. However, I�m not here to discuss the fairness of the treaty, we can do that in another thread if anyone wishes. Anyway, the UK and France did not �finally decide to put their foot down� - in actual fact their military forces were vastly weak and would have been unable to stop Hitler in his initial stages even if they wanted to. People DID NOT know how dangerous he was. He kept telling the world and the German people that after he had taken back what had been stripped from them under the treaty he would stop. Now, in no way am I suggesting that they should have trusted Hitler and taken him at his word, but what I am saying is that it�s easy to read history backwards. Oh sure Hitler wanted to storm across the world and have a thousand year Reich. Sure, the people in Russia were bound to revolt against Tsar Nicholas, everything points to it. Sure, Saddam wants to invade the west and have dominion over us most of the word just like the Romans did. I think you can draw the parallels for yourself. From what you�ve said it would seem you would have supported a pre-emptive strike on Germany? That would have done more harm that good I can assure you. Even if we had the ability to do so, which we did not, it would have compounded the situation. Sure you might have brought us some time but in the end the same thing would have happened, most probably worse than it actually did.

quote:

In this era, the first move could wipe out an entire country, so the burden is put on those who have the power... to prevent that sort of strike from ever happening.

Yes, the burden is put on those that have the power to prevent a horrific tragedy happening (incidentally the UN not gung ho US or any individual nation) but that does not mean we should tear up the world pointing the finger in a witch hunt under the moral pretence of a �war against terror�. Only when we have explored every other non-violent method to it�s fullest, we are saving people form needless death and we are totally confident that it is the correct moral route to take should this kind of action be followed. I am not convinced at all this is the right course of action in Iraq�s situation and no amount of prefabricated, circumstantial evidence, spin and propaganda by war mongers will have me change my mind. I want cold hard clean facts.

saddam wants to control oil doesnt he? We all would be fuxxed if he had complete control. . . .with access to weapons of mass destruction.

Well put Spin Doctor!

quote:

Originally posted by Busy Child saddam wants to control oil doesnt he? We all would be fuxxed if he had complete control. . . .with access to weapons of mass destruction.

We need to remember that Oil won�t last forever. It�s running out and very quickly. What are we going to do when the Oil runs out anyway, regardless of whether Saddam has it or not? However yes if he had complete control of the access to oil then we would be screwed in the short term. However, realistically I don�t think he ever could. Tensions are high round there. He could create a big fracas, yes but I don�t think he could really pose a deadly threat to the rest of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj_Irish Well put Spin Doctor!

Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor What are we going to do when the Oil runs out anyway, regardless of whether Saddam has it or not?

Hydrogen fuel cells should power about half the cars on the road 5-6 years from now, according to major U.S. and Japanese manufacturers.

by the time we run out of oil, most of us would be over 80 years old or dead....unless they come out with some kind of life extending thing
oil runs out in around 60-70 years

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