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.

 

So Saddam agrees to destroy the missiles...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 11:51 AM
link   
after all....who didn't see that one coming? Next, we demand you do this... Saddam: No way! Days later, UN about to meet again... Saddam: Ok, ok...

Please...it's time to end this game. No matter what happens now the UN still comes off as being ineffective. After more than a decade of flouting every single agreement made as a condition of cease-fire, the UN still is unable, and unwilling to put it's foot down. Truly, this is a sad time for the world community.



arc

posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 12:11 PM
link   
can someone explain something to me please, as in my own ignorance I didn't pay enough attention during the Gulf War (something to do with school exams/illness/no internet) and need to catch up fast.

Gazrock I think it was you who said a few days ago that one of the conditions of Saddam staying in power after the Gulf War was that he would not be allowed to own any WMD etc. What I'm missing here is why was he allowed to stay in power? Why didn't you kill him when you had the chance last time?



posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 12:19 PM
link   
We could have but we didn't.

*tisk-tisk* must maintain our forgiving image...No, we can't just kill a helpless insane person who is trying to take over who knows what...



posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 12:46 PM
link   
wasn't my decision... The international community would not back the decision to remove Saddam from power...so, we agreed, knowing full well we'd be back in a few years...



posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Bush Sr. wanted to go in but was told to stand down by the U.N. as it was not in the U.N. mandate to remove So-dam Insane from power. Though I don't know why?



posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Like Gazrock said, arc, the community, especially Arab, didn't want an Arab government overthrown. The US-led coalition had Arab members. Back then; Syria was fighting along side the US (as was Egypt and SA). Jordan sided w/ Iraq for the most part. Then being the good yanks we are, we let the Arabs roll into a liberated Kuwait for show. After we did the dirty work. Powell has been greatly criticized for ending the ground war too early. He was the joints chief of staff then btw. The still left a large part of the so-called ëeliteí Republic Guard in place (no relation to the GOP, lol). Which doesnít pose a threat to the US, but it did to the Kurds and then later (in 93, I think) Saddam almost invaded Kuwait again leaving many to wonder why the US didnít demolish more of the Army. It did seem like a premature ending which was probably a political move after the ëhighway of death incidentí where the US obliterated a 3 or 4-mile Iraqi convoy leaving Kuwait with loot and military equipment. The media blew it out of proportion, making it look like the US was being brutal and what not. Some say it was the US feeling vengeful because a scud just hit a spot in SA killing many US soldiers (an old colleague of mine was one of the few survivors of that scud attack). So here we are all these years later with a terrible policy on Iraq: containment. It hasnít worked out all that well. Thereís a huge amount of anti-Americanism in the region that didnít seem to be present then. Why? By in large containment, how many times does UBL insist that the yanks leave their lands, etc, etc. A ëroot causeí of terrorism is our containment policy (no-fly zones, sanctions, thousands of troops in Iraqís neighbors). To get rid of our containment policy and move out the ME, weíll need to remove the one that weíre containing. Or disarm him like he was supposed to be disarmed to ensure he canít do anything when we pull out. Thatís the reason for war, I think.


arc

posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 02:18 PM
link   
thankyou for helping me understand that situation better. Part of the reason I joined this board was to find out more so I could decide where I stood on this current situation. I'll admit I'm still having trouble - I don't like warfare but neither do I wish to see saddam in power and his people living without freedom. I think he's been given more than enough time to get rid of his weapons and his human rights record is truly shocking.

I suspect since joining that I have come across as anti-war, yet I'm no pacifist. If war is the only way this can be resolved then I will support a war. However until then I've been trying to consider every other option of removing Saddam without killing many more innocent people and breeding yet more terrorists. I hate feeling like I'm sat on the fence here



posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 03:12 PM
link   
without war, I'd welcome it...but 12 years of diplomacy has borne no fruit, and unfortunately, Saddam only seems to understand force. Notice, how his sudden changes of heart (Ok, I'll destroy the missiles) only happen when a gun is pointed to his head...and then he even tries to weasel out (I don't know how to destroy the missiles...) Nobody wants to see innocents get killed, but it will happen, and Saddam is the one who even tries to create more casualties, by locating his stockpiles in civilian heavy areas, and the use of human shields... Luckily, at least we'll get some of the idiot non-Iraqi human shield volunteers, and clean up the gene pool a bit....



posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 04:06 PM
link   
It doesn't matter whatb Iraq does. If Saddam does not leave, there WILL be invasion. Besides, who really believes that with over 200k troops, billions in equipment not to mention the millions being spent each day to support this deployment that their will not be a war? Sheesh

Another point, it tears me up that the UN thinks that the inspections are the reason why saddam is going to destroy his missiles. That's so much crap. The real reason is because of the items mentioned above. The UN is so weak.




top topics



 
0

log in

join