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.

 

I am a German

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2003 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I stand corrected on the issue of 1984 and the fact of the matter is it was late last night when I posted same.

I was thinking about other events related to the demise of communism and the Warsaw pact.

It would be to the advantage of Saddam Hussein to produce at least half of his WMD if they were from the US. It would give the UN what it wanted and the matter would pretty much be established as resolvable within even greater time limits than the UN is requesting now.

Fact of the matter is such a move would make him look real good and stabilize his authority of Iraq. At the time time he would probably end up keeping the rest by claiming those were in fact destroyed. That he does
Not do this is a clear indication he cannot. Because these weapons which we all seem to agree he has
Are not of US design and that is my point. They are of Russian design and purchased illegally.

Why is that despite the reports presented by Iraqi defectors, more emphasis is not being placed on the search for tunnels and underground facilities.

Iraq today is not a threat to the US perhaps if left alone it could become one in 10 to 15 years. Who Iraq is a threat to is the Eastern Hemisphere. And as was made clear in another thread no one in Europe thought Hitler was a threat until it was two late. If Saddam uses those weapons and they turn out to be of Russian design that will be able to prove the attack did not come from Russia?

Common guys, if we can't prove it came from Iraq that means a full scale nuclear war.

I admit I should have checked my facts in relation to 1984 I was tired and it had been a long day. But
If the basis on any ones response to what is above, throws the baby out with the bath water? In effect what is then being condoned will be much worst that was happened to Europe in WW II.

The attached link is an example of Saddam Hussein response to people who disagree
With him.


Phisicians for Human Rights

The UN was formed because this sort of thing was going on in the past the evidence is clear that is has occured again.




posted on Feb, 22 2003 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toltec
...But
If the basis on any ones response to what is above, throws the baby out with the bath water? In effect what is then being condoned will be much worst that was happened to Europe in WW II.

It seems I didn't understand you fully, but it seems you didn't either.

What you are saying is Irak weapon inventory was purchased before Gulf War?

Something is flawed there:
1st) Why not use those during Gulf War?
2nd) Most weapons (80%) were destroyed during the conflict.
3rd) 90% of the remaining weapons were destroyed after Gulf War.

So basically, you are saying Irak was using only 50% of its armament during Gulf War and hiding the other 50%? Even when they run out of weapons to prevent bombardment of Baghdad, Basora,...?

Sorry, I don't buy that.



posted on Feb, 22 2003 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MakodFilu

Answer to the post Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

....
Please, don't think you are the only place treated. We in Canary Islands are under risk of 'friendly' Marocco invasion. Anti-christianism is uprising there. Please, *stop* this madness... now!

I failed to say this issue about attacking Irak is the direct cause of those anti-chirstianism ultra-pro-islamism uprising in Marocco. We are like a Spanish carrier permanently parked in the Atlantic Ocean in front of Marocco coasts. We are in direct terrorism treat *because* of the intended war on Irak.

[Edited on 2003-2-23 by MakodFilu]



posted on Feb, 22 2003 @ 09:32 PM
link   


I failed to say this issue about attacking Irak is the direct cause of those anti-chirstianism ultra-pro-islamism uprising in Marocco. We are like a Spanish carrier permanently parked in the Atlantic Ocean in front of Marocco coasts. We are in direct terrorism treat *because* of the intended war on Irak.

[Edited on 2003-2-23 by MakodFilu]


So you don't think it's the government in Morocco which has increased the terrorism threat, but the immnent US attack on Iraq.

Attacking your tiny island, would be pointless for any terrorist. So just relax a little.
If you are in danger from attacks from locals then maybe this is your chance to remove these fanatics from your corner of the world.



posted on Feb, 22 2003 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
So you don't think it's the government in Morocco which has increased the terrorism threat, but the immnent US attack on Iraq. Attacking your tiny island, would be pointless for any terrorist. So just relax a little.
If you are in danger from attacks from locals then maybe this is your chance to remove these fanatics from your corner of the world.

After succesfully dismantling an organization related with Al-Qaeda funding installed here in Tenerife, we are safer now, but our little *islands* had been the target of Marocco government for decades.

I live here, you don't. Don't tell me to relax if I don't feel sure enough. I'm not telling about attacks, I'm telling about *invasion*. And yes, anti-occidental consigns because War on Irak are the spark that it's going to ignite the fire of conquest on Marocco.

Areyou suggesting we should blame Marocco? What are you pretending? To make uneasy diplomatic relations go even worse? No, thanks.

[Edited on 2003-2-23 by MakodFilu]



posted on Feb, 23 2003 @ 12:18 AM
link   



1st) We do have Desert storm veterans permanently assigned as patients to our Veterans Hospitals. They suffer from what is more then likely the side effects
of inoculating themselves with the antidote used to stop the effects of chemical weapons. The antidote works but the side affects can cause death to about 15% of those who use it and permanent brain damage to about another 20% (taking this from just of the top of my head). The antidotes were used because detectors applied responded to chemical weapons having been used in their area. Some claimed that this was the reuslt of plants which produced chemical weapons begin destroyed. But if that is true the effects should have influenced civilian populations. That there are no reports of this from either side does indicate chemical weapons were used against our troops.

2nd) Those estimates are based on Iraqis alleged capacity to produce WMD. This based on observable
assets.

3rd) Again the basis for this is related to observable assets, but for the sake of argument lets assume he only had 10% of his full capacity prior to Desert storm available afterwards. This still runs into the ability to produce a substantial amount of weapons.

In regards to the "50%" with relation to my last post I was reflecting the idea that if those weapons were of American design. Saddam Hussein would have an advantage in giving the UN half of them (of those currently in his possession. It would certainly take the pressure off of him to the extent that even the idea of War with Iraq would not be contemplated in the not too distant future (as it is now).

The fact that he has not taken this outlet portends to the conclusion the WMD were designed by another country and in all probability were purchased illegally. as a reuslt the numbers presented could be off by a factor of perhaps as little as 10 and as much as 25 what estimates considered him to have.

As far as I know yes he was holding back conventional forces to defend Baghdad. As far as WMD if he had used them against Coalition forces during the GW1 en mass those forces would have attacked Baghdad.

My impression is that the fundamental Mandate of the United Nations is to protect the world population against acts of Genocide. And so when the preponderance of evidence points to the fact that such an event has occured. Every possible effort should be made (including the threat of war and war itself) against the leader, institutions and military, which supported the acts of mass murder. The evidence presented in the link I provided in my last post does constitute that in fact.

What I do not buy is the idea he should be allowed to get away with it.



posted on Feb, 23 2003 @ 03:40 PM
link   
first off all

I want to thank you all for giving repies to a first time poster...

Now here is what I think. I am horrified about the way the US is acting. War should only be a last resort when diplomacy fails. And I don't think diplomacy failed yet, but bush wants to go to war risking the lives of many of my firends (I lived 4 years in the US).

On the other hand, the way the German governmant acts is just wrong because we give saddam hope. In my opinon Schroeder and Bush should have just sat down and clear thinks out.

Greetings from white munich,

Brickwall



posted on Feb, 24 2003 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Diplomacy has failed. Has gone on 12 years. If diplomacy was ever going to work, it would have worked on day one, or day 50, or day 500.. not day 4,500. If weapon inspections worked, they would have worked immediately. Their job isn't to be detectives but to verify the disarmament info that the Iraqi gov't gives them as proof of disarmament. By the way, screw the UN anyway. US can't let any other organizations but itself govern it's policies especially when it comes to our own defense.

All you folks who blame the US for everything, and call Bush a warmonger, or the US the real Axis of evil make me wanna barf.


[Edited on 24-2-2003 by Shady]



posted on Feb, 26 2003 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Yet? How long do you wish to try diplomacy when it isn't working? A year, two years...twelve years???


Diplomacy has more than failed. In fact, I don't believe there has ever been a leader who has welched on more promises made as conditions of surrender, in the entire history of the world...and yet, the world has just gone..."oh well, bad boy". Iraq is one of the largest "open" supporters of terrorists in the world, providing havens to numerous groups, including Al'Queda, as well as even openly paying the families of suicide bombers. This is the reason Saddam has to go. Yes, I realize that French and German companies make money selling to Iraq...so did we at one point, but we stopped back when Saddams intentions became clear. France and Germany did not. Personally, it's time for France and Germany to pick their ponies, and their bedfellows...however, they seem perfectly willing to place their bets on the losing horse...who'd have thunk it?



posted on Feb, 26 2003 @ 10:13 AM
link   
...In fact, USA have lost that war one time. So 2nd round ?



posted on Feb, 26 2003 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Iraqis were surrendering to our reporters! LOL!!!

No we didn't lose, just that we didn't finish the job because some countries (don't worry, we won't mention France's name...oops, but there were many others) didn't approve of ousting Saddam. Of course, we knew we'd have to do it all over again, just that this time, we'll do what's needed, instead of what's PC...



posted on Feb, 26 2003 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
...[blah]...Yes, I realize that French and German companies make money selling to Iraq...[blah]...

Enough of that: do you have proof? Or are you talking (edited) spreaded by others?

[Edited on 2003-2-27 by MakodFilu]

[Edited on 27-2-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

Words are words, Thomas, can't hurt by itselves :p

[Edited on 2003-2-28 by MakodFilu]



posted on Feb, 26 2003 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I am German by heritage and have always felt comfortable in Germany. However, one cannot say this war is right. I credit Germany for standing up. And as I said before, Korea is a greater threat to the US. Iraq is the 5th largest oil supplier to the US and IS the biggest threat to Israel. I repeat Israel.







 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join