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.

 

100% PRO WAR = 0% INTELLIGENT

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 08:01 AM
link   
All these anti war protestors say, yes lets get rid of sadam, but not by war! That all very well and good but how else do you wanna get rid of him, walk up to him in his palace and say, oh sadam old chum, would you mind stepping into our bullet proof riot truck and let us take you back to the US for a public murder? There's a good chap! Who's with me!!??

Uneasy




posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Most anti-war protesters don't believe the ousting of Saddam is needed. They feel that since he has done nothing (but sponsor terrorism worldwide and provide havens to terrorists, while rebuilding his military to defense-unecessary levels) for twelve years, he isn't a threat. For some strange reason, they feel that the diplomacy and inspections, sanctions, which have not worked for a dozen years, will somehow work now...


dom

posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 08:21 AM
link   
That's not the only viewpoint.

In the UK there is a majority in favour of war, but only if it's sanctioned by the international community (i.e. a 2nd UN resolution).

Currently a lot of the problems around this crisis are about how we want to run the world in the 21st century. Do we just trust the US to make the right choices and allow it to run the world on it's own, or do we try to obtain some kind of international consensus through bodies like the UN?

Personally, I'm behind the latter position. Ignoring institutions like the UN will put us back into a position only seen pre-WW1, and pre-WW2 (after the league broke up). We need to have a united world, not one that's fractured and chaotic.



posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 08:28 AM
link   
i value both of your points. That isnt my only view though. Please dont think i'm that narrow minded. I think that its no longer a case of WOMD (weapons of mass destruction) anymore and the public dont realise that the real reason is that Bush and Blair just dont like Sadam and want rid. Maybe for the good or maybe to warn countries like N.Korea that they are powerful and they should not threaten us.

hmmm... confusing eh? Uneasy



posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 09:03 AM
link   
The only problem is that the current structure of the UN is outdated, and in serious need of changing to more accurately reflect today's political climate. Not to mention, this idea of the "permanent members" and "vetoes" must go.

Either way, the UN will be damaged (war or not), but it's more the fault of the UN in general, not the US, for failing to enforce it's resolutions, and allowing Saddam to ignore them for 12 years....

I too, would have rather seen this go forward with UN sanctioning. Problem is, we can't afford to wait another 12 years...and given the current UN structure (where just two countries can prevent action), that's how long it's likely to take...


dom

posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Sorry, I've answered this point in a different thread. But I don't think the UN is particularly outdated. Perhaps veto's should be given to the biggest 6 in the world, then 12 other randomly picked members states should also be around the table. Would make more sense than having the 5 victors of WW2, which will become increasingly outdated. Interestingly, the presence of China actually comes over as prescient, the presence of France as odd (but in the current crisis, extremely important).

I think the veto has worked well in the past, and it's extremely important that UN action *is* supported by all of the powerful countries in the world. Otherwise we risk seeing powerful countries at each other's throats, which is not in anyone's interests.

No-one is suggesting not doing anything for 12 more years. Most people are talking about letting the inspectors complete their job, which is 2-3 months. But if the inspectors say Saddam has disarmed, then everyone has to agree to abide by that judgement... if not, then everyone has to agree that military force is the only remaining alternative.



posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 09:15 AM
link   
You're not listeing to me. Do you agree that B+B just want rid of Sadam? And in any case, are you pro war or not, that was my origonal question.

Uneasy



posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 09:18 AM
link   
the more powerful nations simply get more votes... That way, they still have great influence, but not the veto nonsense... Really, do you think that the current statuses of France and Germany warrant veto power? Surely not...

Announced inspections are a joke. They simply move the equipment, bury it, etc. and then bring it back when the inspectors leave. They're thrown a bone every now and then, but he's already in clear violation of his agreements. The very fact that he didn't allow them in for years, and only now at gunpoint, should serve as proof of that. We were ready to roll on the 15th of last month, but a few illegal suppliers didn't want to see their goods discovered...well, every day those troops are there it is costing good money, so I don't think it will be much longer, and certainly not 2 or 3 months....

Sorry Uneasy,

No, I don't believe this is some kind of personal issue of Bush and Blair against Saddam. After the events of 9/11, we were forced to re-examine the threats in the world. Here (in Iraq), we have a dictator who had already had a long history of war with neighbors, who harbors and supports terrorists (not necessarily Al Queda, but terrorists nonetheless), and after blatantly ignoring the UN's resolutions for 12 years, who is in serious need of being ousted. The need to show the American people that "something" was being done (after losing Osama), was pressing, so Bush moved to the rather visable Saddam as a target...

[Edited on 11-3-2003 by Gazrok]


dom

posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Sorry uneasy, didn't mean to ignore you.

I'm anti-war without UN backing, pro-war if we can show that Saddam is in flagrant violation of the Gulf War ceasefire. Unfortunately there is no evidence for that right now, so as of this moment I am anti-war.

As far as motivations...

Bush - Oil, Settling Daddy's scores, geopolitical interests in the region, and fear (from 9/11).

Blair - trying to reign in Bush, and now in a position where he's trapped into supporting Bush, even though he knows that he's in the wrong.

Just my personal opinions...


dom

posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Gazrok - The current inspections are unannounced. Not only that but we're allowed to have helicopters and U2 spyplanes in the sky, so it's pretty easy to hover over an area of Iraq as the inspectors leave their compound and watch to see if anything gets moved.

More spy-planes would help here, as the French/Germans have pointed out.

Whether or not the US is ready to go in there guns blazing is irrelavant. Having an army in the region is not a valid excuse for a war.



posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 09:26 AM
link   
and you are entitled to them dom. how about you gazrock?



posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 09:33 AM
link   
to my previous post.

You may think the inspections are "unannounced' but that simply isn't the case (you can bet those sites know they are coming). Also, our spy planes and satellites have discovered items being buried before inspectors arrive, trucks being moved, etc., just that everyone seems to be ignoring these facts...



posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 09:39 AM
link   
*feeling like i am a judge in a court*

Wat say you mr.dom? Do you agree with this movement acusation?


dom

posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Nice uneasy.

Actually, the only pictures we've currently seen in the public domain about this were shown by Powell about a month ago (something like that). A few weeks later Hans Blix talked about how they'd investigated the images and found that they'd been taken *3 weeks* apart. The second image showed UN jeeps pulling up to the compound, the first one showed extra barrels from the same angle + a truck if I remember correctly. They were presented as evidence of Iraq reacting to an upcoming inspection, but Blix concluded that there was no evidence that the movement of these barrels was anything other than routine.

This bit of Blix's report was cut out of CNN's "complete" transcript of his presentation...



posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 10:01 AM
link   
and more than just a few photos, including voice intercepts, etc. Simply put, if you know that tomorrow, I'm coming to your house to look for ketchup, and if I find any, you'll be arrested, do you think I'll find any??? This is why the inspections don't work, and more ground intelligence is needed, but won't happen. Now, you'll likely counter with them not being announced, but when a road in the middle of the desert only leads to a facility, and it takes 2 hours to get there...tell me that they don't know you're coming....


dom

posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I agree that 2 hours is a long time to reach a facility. But that's what the helicopters and U2 overflights are for. It should be pretty obvious if a big lorry leaves one of these facilities just before inspectors get there...

The voice intercepts seemed to be related to modified vehicles if I remember correctly. They were extremely vague, I remember listening to them live and thinking "hmmm, I wonder how much of this interpretation is in the translation"...



posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 10:31 AM
link   
before inspectors arrive is considered "routine" by Blix, you really have to wonder what else he considers "routine". Regardless of what evidence there is, or whether or not you agree that it is valid, WOMD are not the only reasons for action. You cannot deny the fact that Saddam has violated each and every resolution it agreed to, in some form or another, in addition to publicly funding terrorism (i.e. awards to suicide bomber families, and safe haven provider). It is past time to end this 12 year shell game.


dom

posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 10:36 AM
link   
No Gazrok... the barrels may have been moved at any time in that 3 week period. They'd only have known that UN inspectors were on the way a few hours before they arrived. Do you have any proof that the barrels were moved in the last 3 hours of that 504 hour period?

WMD's are the reason to go to war here, we're claiming he's in breach of a ceasefire agreement. If he isn't, then we have no legal route to launch a war. Funding the families of dead suicide bombers is in poor taste, but it's not the same as paying for the explosives that the bomber uses.



posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 10:59 AM
link   


I agree that 2 hours is a long time to reach a facility. But that's what the helicopters and U2 overflights are for. It should be pretty obvious if a big lorry leaves one of these facilities just before inspectors get there...
If you rember Powell provided evidence of trucks leaving suspected sites.And of course Iraq said it just normal activity,and proves nothing.So who are going to believe.
It does not matter how much evidence we provide, Iraq is going to deny it and the inspectors,France and Germany are going to believe him or turn a blind to Saddam.
There is an old saying "if you want something done right,do it yourself".That is what the U.S is going to have to do.


dom

posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 11:05 AM
link   
nyeff- those images of trucks leaving suspected sites... that's what we're talking about. The before and after photos were taken 3 weeks apart, says the UN inspectors after examining the evidence!!!!

Provide some evidence that stands up to scrutiny and the US might actually get somewhere in persuading the UN security council!

As far as I can see, the US made up their mind a long time ago that this was going to be war, under any circumstances. So they've been spinning and spinning and I'd even say, lying, to try and get everyone to back them up.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join