|
UN inspections are a joke
|
View this Thread in Original format
| FuzzyGreen |
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?
:nervous: I'm scared for the safety of my family, especially after reading about all the American haters here.:nervous: |
|
|
| Az |
Calm the 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!
:) |
|
|
| Spin Doctor |
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. |
|
|
| stringfelowhawk |
| 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 ING 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. |
|
|
| stringfelowhawk |
| 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. |
|
|
| Az |
| 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? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| stringfelowhawk |
| 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? :rolleyes: |
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. |
|
|
| Az |
| 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 ;) |
|
|
| stringfelowhawk |
Ok, good point. It is interesting how we 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? |
|
|
| Az |
| quote: | Originally posted by stringfelowhawk
Ok, good point. It is interesting how we 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? :) |
|
|
| stringfelowhawk |
| 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 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. |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
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. |
|
|
|
|
