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.

 

Calling "french fries" "american fries" seems ironic to me!!!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Not sure what you mean by two months more. I think Blix had closed to 6 months and only because the threat of force was present. Saddam did not just decide to let inspectors back in because he thought he was wrong before. And Scott Ritter isn't credible because he changed 180 degress from what his stance was after some funds went into his bank account from Iraqi interests. Hns Blix gave many reports and in each, he had to report that Iraq was not complying fully 1441. It was not their job to hunt these things. 1441 said present all WMD and the inspectors would verify and oversee their destruction. This was not some goosechase around Iraq in some sort of hide and seek game. Thats what it turned into and it was time to end it.




posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 10:07 AM
link   
just to be prudent, but the result would have been the same (you're not going to find the smoking gun when being led by the nose away from it), and it was deemed that after a lame report claiming no finds, would've caused even less support, so the go-ahead was given....

Ritter? Are you joking? He's too busy chatting with kiddies in sex chat rooms to be taken seriously....


dom

posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 10:10 AM
link   
The French presented a plan which would have given Iraq 6-8 weeks to satisfy a set of criteria specified by Hans Blix. The US rejected this idea.

Hans Blix wasn't meant to hunt for WMD's, but he wanted clarification on a number of issues. There really isn't any evidence that Iraq has been playing games in the latest round of inspections. There are some things unaccounted for, and this is what Blix wanted to get to the bottom of. If the Iraqi's didn't help him out here, then war should have been the result. But instead the US just went ahead anyway, because after all, "the Iraqi's might look like they're complying, but we know better, and we're not going to tell you what we know".

Scott Ritter has been the subject of a major smear campaign by large portions of the right wing media. Firstly he was an Israeli agent, now he's an Iraqi agent, etc. Perhaps he just presents a view which isn't very popular amongst the war mongers...

Honestly, read some of the things he's written, he used to be the head inspector in charge of investigating Iraqi concealment and is one of the most knowledgable people in the world on Iraqi WMD's.



posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I have read Ritter's reports and for his view to change that much after leaving Iraq. I mean, he changed his story without ever going back into the country. The fact that you call it Iraq's concealment tells me thats the violation anyway. So, 6-8 weeks, then what? Someone else with another 2 to 3 months then what? How long did you think this should last? Until he was able to put these weapons into play? That was the time table and Saddam created that himslef. It wasn't a specific amount of time at the UN to satify everyone, it was set by his military capabilities. I can't understand why we continue to argue such a mute point. You know what? Its over or will be soon. I quit, you win I guess. I just can't beat this horse anymore. I have points, you have points and our information sources don't and won't ever agree so take heart in the fact that I concede this argument for whatever good it does. Congrats.


dom

posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Nope, 6-8 weeks, then a decision is made (once again by the security council), attack or remove sanctions.

Remember that the concealment stuff was all part of a policy of containment backed up by Bill Clinton. i.e. we'll do our best to get rid of all these weapons without having to actually destabilise the reason with a war. I guess 9/11 changes the landscape where containment is concerned. But I would just like to have seen some real evidence of WMD/terrorist links, or Blix being frustrated by the Iraqi's, before this war began.

It's perfectly fair for you to hold a different position. I'm just arguing that some of the reasons for holding your position may be interpreted different ways. I'm not meaning to frustrate you, or make you feel like I don't respect your opinion.



posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Dom, no sweat.



posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Dom links to the information you have requested all already available at this site. The matter has been in the recent past discussed, so while you may not find those links on the first page of this forum. Reviewing pages 2 and 3 should provide you with that information (this with regard to the missles)

I am not offering this option because I am upset in any way. But rather they have been posted and reposting them every time a new member comes in. And presents issues in respect to and prior discussion are not only tedious but also uses up space best used for new discussions.

I hope you understand

Would also add that in respect to your most recent post which was predominantly in bold. My opinion on the issue of France, Germany, Russia and China in respect to the matter of Iraq does not deviate much from the comments presented in this thread by the poster who calls himself astrocreep.

Personally I would have preferred a UN sponsored technical analysis presented openly in the UN. If the drone was in fact as trivial as some claim. Such a presentation would have strengthened the point of
it not being an actual threat.



posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 01:57 PM
link   

JCDenton
I havnt been using this board for long, but from what ive seen, most of the US posters are narrow minded and full on US glory.

Do I fall in this 'most' catigory. I think that some of my fellow US posters are right. Hell some are even leftists and I think they're right.(partly)

I think that the world's anti-america sentiment is sickening. They should attemt to correct us on things, not criticize us. Yes, even america needs to be corrected sometimes.


dom

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 04:19 AM
link   
To be honest with you Toltec, I can't find those links.

Sorry about the bold thing, I don't know why it happened, just when I copied one of the links from the nav. bar it must have brought across some strange character that made everything go bold... couldn't find it in edit post mode.



posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Do you really think that after a few more weeks France, Germany, and Russia would have agreed to take action? I have a feeling that they would never agree to anything that involved force. And it seems clear that Saddam would never leave without force. I think the big crime is not having done this 12 years ago when we bailed on the people who were trying to retake their country and got slaughtered without our help. Now we owe it to them. All the while the Iraqi people are suffering while we all sit with our thumbs up our asses debating the situation for 12 years.


dom

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 05:00 AM
link   
If Blix had felt that the Iraqi's were withholding information, then yes, I think a UN resolution would have gone through. I'm not sure if Russia/France would have sent troops, but it would have given the war legitimacy.

Remember that although it looks like Baghdad has just fallen, the next bit is why no-one's wanted this to happen before. What happens to Iraq now? Do we end up with an Iran-style Islamic state? Do we end up with civil war? Do we destabilise the entire region? These are the reasons why deposing Saddam is risky, and we'll only know whether this will go according to plan in a few months time.

Right now the people in Baghdad are chanting "We hate Saddam. We hate Americans." So it might not be as easy as we're thinking it might be.

The worry about not using the UN, is that this is seen as a US invasion more than an international war. And the US is not popular in the Middle East. It'll make it that much more difficult for a new Iraqi administration if it is seen to be a US puppet.



posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Do we destablize? Just when has the region been stable is my question? The resolution did go through and the deadline set by the U.N., France, Germany included ws reached, came and passed. The news footage I saw this morning didn't show anyone shouting we hate the U.S. ..and with the loss of power evident this morning, I wouldn't count on getting anymore of those feeds from Iraqi TV showing people praising Saddam and hating the U.S. Now all that remains hating the US for going in there are the neighboring Arabs that didn't have to live there. Aljazeera will continue their view point but none of them had to live there. Now that the Iraqi people don't have guns at the back of their head and their families held hostage, they are showing how they truly feel. I know the rest of the world hates to see it because it confirms just how bad things were and how despirate these poor souls were. You all blamed sanctions for the starvation but these people lived it every damn day and they know why they were starving and now reguardless of power struggles, they have a chance to have a voice and at least the power to take a bite of food without someone shooting them because Saddam didn't say they could. The people that think it was ok to leave things as they were, need to sit and listen to stories these people cound tell about how many little children were taken from homes in the night to get the man to fight. How Saddam had full course meals prepared for him only in each palace everyday whether he was there or not and the people weren't even given the scraps he thought unfit to eat. Maybe that would add a measure of sobriety to this politically motivated free for all.


dom

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Yes you do. Stability means "not-at-war". And currently there is a war between Iraq and US. So yes, right now the US have destabilised the region. The bigger question is once stability is restored and this war has finished, will the stability be more or less stable? If you see what I mean.

As for why you haven't heard anything anti-American on your media, the answer is in the question mate. Just watch the right-wing government-aligned media, and you'll only get the right-wing government-aligned news.



posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 12:45 PM
link   
No, stabilization just does not mean not at war. It means free of regional tension between countries. Thats what is meant when you here someone speak of destabalized. That means that some economic or political rift has cause violence or the brink of violence and that the controlling Government are losing or have lost power. There is a civil freakin' war every other time you turn around in the Mid-East and they never solve anything. The whole area hasn't been stable since Christ was a child and it may never be. This move by the US is one of the few decisive actions with a clear cut objective and outcome and plan to implement it . Everyone in Iraq except Saddam Hussien will be better for it . How does the continued suffering of these oppressed people help anyone but Saddam Hussein. I'm not sure what News you watch but any of them with Cameras over in Iraq today tell the story. Once again, our media is leftwing and would have loved nothing more than to see this flop and are already putting negativety on this.



posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I must cross swords over the idea of had the Russians, French or Germans sent troops that would have made the war legitimate.

To suggest that one or all of them throwing in with us would give our actions ligitimacy is like saying is Satan is onboard that will add moral direction. The French are mercenaries concerned about themselves, the German population old enough to be politically relevant are the same young ones who staunchly hated us when I was there is the 80's, and our struggle against the Soviets in the Cold War is the primary reason we've run afoul in places like Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.



posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Well, I can't say that the opposers definitely wouldn't have supported action had the inspections gone a little further, but I have to say I am very skeptical. I think one of the main problems is that it is too easy for Saddam to work around the inspectors and I don't think they would have found anything regadless of how much longer they stayed. I also don't think Saddam would have ever come up with evidence of the disposal of previous weapons. Other things that make me skeptical are like during the Gulf War when there was no debate over Saddam's wrong doing, the French still refused to allow the allies to use their air space. Now at that time I was not very aware of worldy events so maybe there was some big justification for this, but I have not found that out yet. perhaps someone could shed some light. Russia just never wants to seem to take any action that involves force. Unless it comes to a hostage situations then they just solve that by killing the hostages. Sorry, that was just an attempt at wit, don't take it seriously.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join