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.

 

no second resolution

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:
dom

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we haven't asked him to step down. If it's regime change that you want to use to justify this war, then you're definitely in violation of a number of international laws.

I'm not arguing that it's not nice to get rid of Saddam, that'd be great for humanitarian reasons. But the humanitarian reasons are not the ones that Bush is worried about, otherwise we'd have quite a few other countries on our hit lists.

Either it's WMD's or regime change. If it's WMD's then let the weapons inspectors decide whether or not Saddam has any remaining, and whether or not he's working with the inspectors. I think they're in a better position to make a judgement about that. If you're not winning the argument, then you have to hold off with the attack...

joe - Bush was an alcoholic before he became a born-again Christian. Personally I prefer Bush as an alcoholic, because he's only going to kill a few people at worst, this way he could kill a hell of a lot more.




posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Iraq has already destroyed about one quarter of its short-range missiles. I call destroying of missiles disarmament. The inspectors said " Iraq was actively, sometimes proactively cooperating" and that much progress in disarmament is being made.

Bombing Iraq would be like killing an unarmed person.

Bush was cured from alcoholism by televangelism, so he says. Then jesus spoke to him and told him to become President. Thats what i call a dangerous man.


dom

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I love this argument... "And Iraq is NOT disarming! They have only used a few WMD as a distraction. They are, in fact, building more WMD as we speak." ... says Colin Powell and George Bush, currently trying to go to war with Iraq at any costs.

The inspectors simply do not back up the fact that he's continuing production of WMD's as we speak. Don't you think a chemical/nuclear/bio facility would be extremely obvious from satellite images? And as for mobile bio labs, the UN has found no evidence of proscribed activities, they have investigated that claim and dismissed it.

Ev-I-Dence.

Provide some.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Another ploy to discredit the president. Sure he's made a few mistakes in his life, but drinking alchohol does not make you an alchoholic. If he over-did it, who cares? Does he drink now? Probably socially, but that's not the point. The point is, he is not an alchoholic now.

The weapons inspectors are there to 'watch' Saddam destroy weapons. They are supposed to be led to the weapons, nowhere does it say, that they are to look for them. So how can they tell if Saddam is cooperating? If he's feeding them little stuff all the time, and not showing the big shoot off, how can we tell? We know for certain that he has WMD, because he had them durring the Desert Storm era, and he hasn't destroyed them yet.

I say force is the only way. Twelve years of diplomacy didn't work. It's not going to start working all-of-a-sudden.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karl Molarius
Are all americans bad loosers or is it just their alcoholical President ?


Number 1: Learn how to spell Losers and alcoholic.

Number 2: I hope you grow bored of the (for the most part) intelligent debate that happens here and leave soon.

Number 3: Bugger off

[Edited on 17-3-2003 by observer]


dom

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Another result of a biased and untruthful media...

"We know for certain that he has WMD, because he had them durring the Desert Storm era, and he hasn't destroyed them yet. "

The inspectors found a great deal of evidence post-Gulf War that Saddam had destroyed most of his weapons himself. They were never entirely sure if he destroyed everything, but they found fields with traces of VX in the soil, Anthrax dumping grounds, thousands of destroyed chemical weapon armaments, etc., etc., etc.

The American people have been lied to extensively during this crisis, but even so, a lot of this information is in the public domain. Do a search for Scott Ritter, read, and learn.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 12:54 PM
link   
hah, you just proved me right...

You said yourself that he had WMD. He destroyed some, but can you prove that he destroyed them all? Bush says he has evidence that proves Saddam has been ordering the continued production of WMD.

The question is, who do you see as the bigger tyrant; Saddam, Bush, or yourself? The war is about the lies and deceit of Saddam for 12 years to the world. Would he call us the 'great satan' if he didn't have somthing to back up his accusations.


I just don't see how you can't see?


dom

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 12:57 PM
link   
If Bush can prove that Saddam is still developing WMD's, why doesn't he present the evidence to the inspectors? Could it be because he doesn't have any credible evidence for this? Open your eyes.

Have you searched for Scott Ritter yet?



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I don't know why Bush hasn't come out with his evidence. He says he has it, I believe him. I do not follow blindly, but then I do not try to turn my cheek so somone who I cannot see.

Bush says he will present the evidence in due time. I wait patienly for him to confirm my speculations, I don't refuse to believe just because I cannot see it. That's what you religious people always argue anyway.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Scott Ritter was one of those former weapons inspectors right? He was the one who said the UN and US were trying to stop them from 'finding' weapons in Iraq.

The ironic part is that you cannot stop inspections. How are we stopping them from being led around by Saddam, shown where weapons are, and watching them be destroyed? I don't think he sounds very credible... I think he's purposfully trying to stop the war because he has some false notions put in his mind by Saddam.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 03:43 PM
link   
the games are over and war is upon us



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by joehayner
I don't know why Bush hasn't come out with his evidence. He says he has it, I believe him.


Bush came out with evidence on Iraq's WMDs and active nuclear programme !

It was evidenced days later partly as false and partly as forged.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 04:15 PM
link   
What he has for sure (Saddam Hussein) are tunnels which were built under the guise and purpose of a subway. Hans Blix has stated he cannot find them and
that is about all he has said (its clear that no real effort has been made).

Saddam Hussein has threatened that if Iraq is attacked the war will extend all over the world how is that possible if today he made the claim he has no WMD???

This is a Game and its time to stop playing it



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toltec
This is a Game and its time to stop playing it


I'm darn serious. In domestic legal practice, you cannot have someone executed on doubtful and forged evidence.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join