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.

 

Breaking news: chemical weapon found in Iraq

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2003 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Blix was sent in by the UN during Clinton's time in DC and he came back with nothing. Later Saddam's son-in-law and other Iraqi scientists came out stating Iraq had WMDs. Oh, Saddam later killed his son-in-law.

As for now, a UN inspector should never allow the people they're "inspecting" to share the podium during an official briefing. It would've looked strange if former Nazis were allowed to share the podium with the war trial investigators after WWII...but I guess things have changed for the worse today.




posted on Jan, 17 2003 @ 03:03 PM
link   
"As for now, a UN inspector should never allow the people they're "inspecting" to share the podium during an official briefing. It would've looked strange if former Nazis were allowed to share the podium with the war trial investigators after WWII...but I guess things have changed for the worse today."

good point never thought of it quite like that but in this country its innocent until proven guilty



posted on Jan, 17 2003 @ 04:06 PM
link   
i think Saddam has already been found criminally insane...too bad his allies/co-conspirators are still on the loose collecting checks from the tax payers for the rest of their lives.



posted on Jan, 17 2003 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cassini
Hans Blix is in a well difficult position here, he could potentially start WWIII, I`d be cautious in that position. I don`t think he is anyones pansy just aware of his moral obligations unlike Blair and Bush


Start WWIII, what a load of bull#. And just how is Iraq going to start WWIII ? Please, enough of this uninformed crap.



posted on Jan, 17 2003 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I haVe found Cassini's posts to be well informed.and frankly above reproach.If you disagree.Then please do so in a civilised way.



posted on Jan, 18 2003 @ 03:05 AM
link   
So you think that given the current climate in that part of the world any conflict might not spill over. N korea seems to be looking for any old excuse at the moment and could well decide to do something to support Iraq. It does n`t take much for war to explode of a large area, just one spark.

At least I`ve something constructive say about the subject other than another memebers talking crap....

(cheers JB1
)

[Edited on 18-1-2003 by cassini]


[Edited on 18-1-2003 by cassini]



posted on Jan, 18 2003 @ 11:00 AM
link   
WWIII??? What a joke.

North Korea could start a WWIII if China jumped in on the action, but nobody is going to step in and help Saddam. Get real....



posted on Jan, 18 2003 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Reaaaalllllyyyy, look at the history of conflict and you`ll see how easy it is for a sitauation to escalate,


N korea could start a WWIII with the detonation of one nuclear bomb, as could saddam with one misfired chem/bio warhead



posted on Jan, 18 2003 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Iraq will be taken apart quicker than you can blink. They won't have a chance to start WWIII. Quit believing Saddam's ape-like chest pounding. One would figure the Gulf War would be a clue.



posted on Jan, 18 2003 @ 11:28 AM
link   
True the gulf war is a very good indication as to what the modern war machine can do and saddam does n`t have the advantages in warfare that, most importantly the US has and secondly Europe and the like has, but other poeple may wanna play to, what happens if Israel gets hit then enters the conflict, tooo many arab nations will get involved at that point to make anything a clear bet.



posted on Jan, 18 2003 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Wait wait, who was making excuses for Hitler before the US joined WW2?

Also, the political circumstances surrounding the current looming conflict with Iraq are vastly different, especially if a UN mandate is not reached and the US decide to attack regardless.



posted on Jan, 18 2003 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Who was making excuses for Hitler?UHHmm!!I know.Was it the US ambassador to the UK one Mr Kennedy later to be the father of a US president.Though corrupt and a serial philanderer he later was loved and respected by the US people for.......UHmmm...........Being Shot?It was Joe Kennedy,right?The only man I know who gave his daughter a frontal lobotomy when she was about to accuse him of sexual abuse.

Ahhhhhhhhh Camelot,Those were the days.



posted on Jan, 18 2003 @ 11:54 AM
link   
lets not forget appeasement by Chamberlin prior to WWII either



posted on Jan, 18 2003 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by cassini
Reaaaalllllyyyy, look at the history of conflict and you`ll see how easy it is for a sitauation to escalate,


N korea could start a WWIII with the detonation of one nuclear bomb, as could saddam with one misfired chem/bio warhead


The problem with your point is that a World War, requires the major countries of the world entering into conflict.ie. China, Russia, US.
This has happened in the last 2 world wars. There just isn't any country of sufficient military strength supporting Iraq or Korea. People can talk about the Arab countries switching thier support to Iraq, but they can't wage war outside their boarders.
A World War involves global conflicts, not Regional ones.

So as for WWIII starting with Iraq or NK, it really is a load of crap. Even if China went to war to support the North, it would still be a regional conflict.



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 03:17 AM
link   
world wars start off as regional conflicts and expand to world ones both WWI and WWII started off as european theartes of war and expanded from there

[Edited on 19-1-2003 by cassini]



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 06:37 AM
link   
I think all countries lose ammo, Russia did at the end of the cold war, the US lost phials containing chemical agents.

The bigger issue is even if he did have these weapons as many countries do, his only threat to the US is control of oil, Do you even know how far away from the US he is and what his military capabilities are?

He is a threat to his neighbours but so is Israel, nobody condemns their weapons of mass destruction. What right have the US got to meddle in world politics when you have a history of getting it wrong?

Not one terrorist has come out of Iraq and not one shred of evidence has been presented to support that Bin Laden bombed the WTC, in the UK we had to deal with the IRA for many years, we are fully aware that terrorist organisations claim responsibility for their actions, Bin Laden has done nothing but deny it.

Actually search some stuff about him on Google and you will see who trained him, armed him and who his family are connected with in the oil trade.

The biggest threat to the world today is the US president who didn't even win his election fairly



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 07:02 AM
link   
My friend only someone who has an anti-american leaning could possible believe that point of view. You only seem to have a narrow field of vision, if these are the only points you have to offer.



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 07:39 AM
link   
i cant believe that they need more to declare war with Iraq



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
My friend only someone who has an anti-american leaning could possible believe that point of view. You only seem to have a narrow field of vision, if these are the only points you have to offer.
Absolutely not, I've met many Americans and have never had a problem with any of you guys, I would say the same if the aggression was coming from any government ... The UK included, Tony Blair, I feel is also totally wrong to be offering his support. Individual People are never the cause of wars but governments are. Incedently I have a great many arguments apart from what I have written here ... how much time do you have?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join