How well did the previous inspections go?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2002 @ 12:15 PM
link   
www.nationalreview.com...

A time line on the first round of inspections. Doesn't sound like they could have accomplished much. Here's an example:

June 1991: Iraqi personnel fire warning shots to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles.

September 13, 1997: An Iraqi officer attacks an UNSCOM inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.




posted on Sep, 18 2002 @ 11:32 PM
link   
It will be the same as before.Here come look,nope changed my mind go away.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 01:47 AM
link   
It seems that the uniform for the day to be issued to the inspectors should include flak vests...



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 08:26 AM
link   
(Yawn). A Right-wing news agency. These guys sound like just another load of Republican ass-kissers. Maybe you should do some actual research, rather than always go running to the Republican yes-men to pat you on the back for holding the opinions you do.

Notice the fact that the listed timeline was released by who? Oh, the White House! What a shock!!


Fry

posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 10:05 AM
link   
This information is derived from an October 1998 UNSCOM
report and excerpted from
cns.miis.edu.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SassyFella
(Yawn). A Right-wing news agency. These guys sound like just another load of Republican ass-kissers. Maybe you should do some actual research, rather than always go running to the Republican yes-men to pat you on the back for holding the opinions you do.

Notice the fact that the listed timeline was released by who? Oh, the White House! What a shock!!


grow up, what the hell are u trying to say that this is all made up ? It is well documented the efforts the Iraqi's made to hinder the inspection process. U need to start reading more before making rash statements.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 10:26 AM
link   
What makes you think that these comments are merely rash outbursts? Is it that they oppose your view?

Or is it that you have the tendency to swallow something as the whole truth the moment that you read it? Too many people believe that as long as they are reading the facts that this therefore must be the whole story.

The UNSCOM team will obviously be reporting their side of the story, and it will obviously be anti-Iraq. It was the head of the UNSCOM team that insisted that they withdraw from Iraq (despite the protest of other members) and they were never kicked out. Further to that, it was the sanctions, totally unnecessary and harming the common Iraqi civilian, that were compelling the Iraqi authorities to be difficult. They were doing so simply because, despite all their efforts, they were finding it to be impossible to be heard when they insisted that the sanctions were wreaking havoc on Iraqi children and families.

Don't get me wrong, please see my view on Saddam and such matters in other posts, but there is a limit to how much one report by one viewpoint will EVER give you. Try researching this a little more before using every little press release as a means of fueling your predisposed dislike of something or someone.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 10:30 AM
link   
If I would have posted this link: cns.miis.edu...

What would you have said then, SassyFella? It's basically where the National Review got it's facts. You obviously didn't read it beyond seeing the Whitehouse mentioned.

And if you have 'research' to the contrary, by all means feel free to share! In the meantime I will continue to post the fiction I find.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Why not look into this issues SG raises, because there is probably some truth in them.

Even though, Bob, u say that left wing arguements typically have no factual basis (a tiny prejudice) u may wish to look into what he is saying.

UNSCOM only give an account of events that took place, not the reasons behind them... WHICH U ASSUME to be malicious.

But you never assume anything Bob, so I'm sure you will enlighten me.


Fry

posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 10:47 AM
link   
3 Apr 1991
U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), Section C, declares that Iraq shall accept unconditionally, under international
supervision, the "destruction, removal or rendering harmless" of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range over 150 kilometers. Requires Iraq to make a declaration, within 15 days, of the location, amounts, and types of all such
items.


[Edited on 19-9-2002 by Fry]



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I simply posted a link guys. THAT'S ALL. I was sharing something I found...THAT'S ALL.

Sassyfella, you assumed it was rightwing propaganda w/ out actually reading from where it was. Sure, UNSCOM made the report and you're right FD - they're all probably a bunch friggin' liars those UNSCOM guys...j/k.



[Edited on 19-9-2002 by Bob88]



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I never claimed that it was right-wing propaganda. I see propaganda as willful misleading of a group of people. What I did imply in reference to the "right" was that this information would naturally be of use to them in this context as it helps them make their point. Obviously, the left and right both resort to this. I probably have in my lifetime (probably? Please, who in God's name hasn't?!!).

As you clearly just mentioned, you were posting the information. No problem, and totally legit. I must make very clear that I DID in fact go to the link, and I DID read it in its entirety. I certainly don't think it is fiction; I think it is only PART of the story. I was not implying, overtly or covertly, that the White House was handing out lies, I was making the point, again, that they would naturally find such info to be good for their cause. I knew further that the news agency was right-wing because of their prominent link at the top of their website to AIM (Accuracy In Media) probably the most anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, pro-Republican, pro-Bush news organisation in the entire history of the USA.

Anyways, I'll see if I can retrieve some of the articles and works that I've read in the past and post some links. For now, back to work.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I politely retract the word 'propaganda'






top topics
 
0

log in

join