It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What if Iraq really DOESNT have weapons?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 08:46 PM
link   
what if they UN inspectors and NATO did all they can do, researched every square inch of iraq and found nothing.

come one now.. Sadaam may be a bad man but what if he's telling the truth when he says they have nothing

what will happen then? will america create a new problem for them to have a logical reason to invade iraq ?




posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 09:55 PM
link   
You would think our Government would already have iron clad evidence before they got involved in this.

Assuming that there is not any could imply all sorts of issues. Nonetheless the UN will not sanction war against a country which is in compliance.

As far as the US is concerned attacking a country after the United Nations has refused to sanction war would be a serious blow to the efficacy of the institution that is the UN. As mentioned that could potentate all kinds of issues including the break up of the UN.



posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I wish we could start the break up of the UN i hate them they have overstepped what they were intended for.



posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I honestly think that maybe Iraq isn't hiding anything. Or maybe they just called the US's bluff. Today, Iraqi's Chief Science Officer, Amir al-Saadi, invited American CIA agents into the country to point out to inspectors where the hidden sites are.

news.bbc.co.uk...

If that isn't an open door policy, I don't know what is. But, the American's rejected the offer, for reasons that I can't understand.

But, honestly, what happens when Blix reports to the UN on the 27th of January and says "We looked everywhere, in every factory and palace and found nothing to note"? Would the UN legitimize Iraq again? Remove the embargo? Or would the US veto the vote? If it did, would it end the UN?

The US just veto'd a resolution dealing with anti-Israeli comments, condemning the deaths of three UN workers in Gaza and the West Bank. The world didn't end.

news.bbc.co.uk...

According to Quicksilver, "they have overstepped what they were intended for". Just what were they intended to do then? Take a look at this, it's the UN Charter, I think you might want to read it.

www.un.org...



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 04:22 AM
link   
This is Bush's war.
it really doesn't matter what Iraq does, the ignorant little tit intends to blow them up.
personally I hope he contracts some sort of terminal disease, infects his entire family and dies in a festering pile of his own vomit, repugnant little sh1t.



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 05:54 AM
link   
No, Lupe, this is mainly America's war as we are the one's mostly seen as the Great Satan. We are the ones that is the most prized target, after Israel. Bush, unlike other presidents, are taking the call for war against America seriously. Of course it makes it easier to take it seriously when the unthinkable happens as it did on September 11, 2001.

Dakmarid, Hussein is trying to get into the driver's seat and Bush isn't letting him. Allegedly, they have enough evidence to go and remove Saddam, but still, they haven't started the war. Maybe they won't have to, but if they don't, it won't be because Hussein played straight. It's all a cat and mouse game to Hussein.



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 10:12 AM
link   
What if the moon really IS made of green cheese?



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101
This is Bush's war.
it really doesn't matter what Iraq does, the ignorant little tit intends to blow them up.
personally I hope he contracts some sort of terminal disease, infects his entire family and dies in a festering pile of his own vomit, repugnant little sh1t.




Any wonder why people flame this dork so often?



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 10:31 AM
link   
"Bush, unlike other presidents, are taking the call for war against America seriously. "

I'd love to see some actual evidence that Saddam is part of that war, or indeed that he wants it...from what I can tell no evidence has turned up, the Dossier which must now be regarded as "suspicious" due to the way the US handled it has "ommissions2 but nothing that seems to indicate he's involved in an ongoing campaign against the US.

He's just another face for the bug bear because Bush knows that the public can't conceptualise a war with no specific enemy, which is what were dealing with.



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toltec

As far as the US is concerned attacking a country after the United Nations has refused to sanction war would be a serious blow to the efficacy of the institution that is the UN. As mentioned that could potentate all kinds of issues including the break up of the UN.



WHAT ? The UN will break if the USA attack Irak without any UN mandate ?????????????

ATTACK THEM NOW ! ATTACK THEM NOW !


Damn, if we have a chance to break the UN, we can't miss it !


P.S : For those who don't know it, I hate the UN !



[Edited on 23-12-2002 by ultra_phoenix]



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Either way the US is going to find a "legitimate" reason to attack Iraq. Even if they don't have WMD, which I think is BS, we will just find another reason to invade them. I don't think there is any escape from this war.



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101
"Bush, unlike other presidents, are taking the call for war against America seriously. "

I'd love to see some actual evidence that Saddam is part of that war, or indeed that he wants it...from what I can tell no evidence has turned up, the Dossier which must now be regarded as "suspicious" due to the way the US handled it has "ommissions2 but nothing that seems to indicate he's involved in an ongoing campaign against the US.




I posted this in another thread, but it applies here as well...

Wow. It just amazes me how some people twist the truth simply to have something to bash someone with. In this and other threads, it is either insinuated or said out right that the US cut the Iraqi documents down to 3500 pages. Lets get the truth out there, people. The 3500 page document is the one pared down by the UN, NOT the US, and given to the non-permanent members of the Security Council. They were not privy to the entire document because of security reasons, what ever the UN means by that, as in my opinion, the words "United Nations" and "security" are mutually exclusive.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join