Acriku Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 I say never elect Bush again, then we might not be so hasty to war in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted February 4, 2003 Author Share Posted February 4, 2003 You seem to forget that its not up to the US or anyone else for that matter to prove that Iraq has weapons. It is up to Iraq to show that they have destroyed the weapons that we already know exist. Iraq hasn't done that, they have shown no sign of doing that, so how long do we wait?Iraq was known to be making weapons grade uranium in a process that would take 5-7 years before it would be ready. Do we wait until they declare they have a nuclear bomb like happened with North Korea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 The point is, Gob, that Iraqs nuclear program is in ruins. The forelast inspection team left 2 years ago, and they couldn't even have started building a nuke yet without significant foreign aid, wich wasn't there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted February 4, 2003 Author Share Posted February 4, 2003 Ok well here is some of my sources on Iraq still working on getting nukes... waiting on some from you. :)http://www.nci.org/sadb.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,767235,00.htmlSaddam Hussein will have enough weapons-grade uranium for three nuclear bombs by 2005, a former Iraqi nuclear engineer told senators yesterday, as the US Congress held hearings on whether to go to war."IAEA's recent claims that they have 'neutralized [iraq's] nuclear-weapon program' and 'destroyed all their key buildings and equipment' related to weaponization are patently false, and the Agency's own inspection reports prove it," said Steven Dolley, NCI research director. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 However, experts with dissenting views, such as Scott Ritter, another former UN inspector, had not been invited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted February 4, 2003 Author Share Posted February 4, 2003 That is all you have? :)I'm sorry but it is going to take a bit more then that to convince me Iraq isn't hiding things. Why not co-operate unless you are hiding something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Don't get me wrong though, I think that if Blix and his team find out that Sadam has nukes or bio weapons the UN should go to war, but I think we should give Blix more time as he asks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timenn Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 It looks like everyone wants to see blood. I think Bush for example is hoping that the inspectors will find anything. And that he is dissapointed when it turns out that there is nothing at all.But as I asked before. What about Iraq AFTER the war? Will everyone leave the people, like it has happened alot of times before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 What about Iraq after the war?They will be free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted February 4, 2003 Author Share Posted February 4, 2003 What happens after:http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/03/1044122320739.htmlBlix warning Iraq:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030204/ap_wo_en_po/un_gen_un_iraq_1Earthnuker have you read the UN resolution? The inspectors don't have to find weapons for their to be a "material breach". Iraq has to prove that they have destroyed all of their weapons. Which they haven't been doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timenn Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 They will be freeI wish it would be that simple.The people there don't ask screaming for a new leader. They are often brainwashed. They won't like changes, for they will always be unlucky for them.Putting someone else there then Saddam Hussein isn't going to help with rebuilding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 I know what the resolution means. Iraq has no doubt plans to resume their projects, and they probably didn't destroy all of their weapons, wich is why they aren't willing to cooperate. But whatever they have left, it's probably just unusable scrap, and nukes aren't easy to construct.If the war could be fought without much casualties I might have been in favour of removing Sadam, but the coming war will be a bloody war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 . But whatever they have left, it's probably just unusable scrap, a c]uhhh...lol! What about the 30,000 canisters of VX gas and other toxins he posessed AFTER the gulf war? I'd say that is not exactly "unusable" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 There was an inspection of the Iraqi arsenal 2 years ago, and nothing was found. The US has been sending spy planes over Iraq for the past years, and nothing was found. There's no way he can make them invisible ::) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Do you know how big Iraq is? Surely the inspectors weren't allowed complete access. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 That's surprising. lol. Do you think that Sadam likes inspectors check every inch of his country, even if we assume he doesn't have any MD weapons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 1) Assuming they actually are allowed to search every inch.2) Assuming as well that he contained all of his wepaons in the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude_Doc Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 How about all underground bases? All secret bases? Maybe they hide some inside Bagdad itself? What are spy-planes going to reveal then? And how does the inspectors know of bases not on maps and other locations that are printed on paper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 You all don't understand? Those weapons were already found in 1998. UN seeks for evidence they were destroyed, what has Saddam promised. And if he won't help us, then he'll feel our wrath... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 What about the 30,000 canisters of VX gas and other toxins he posessed AFTER the gulf war? I'd say that is not exactly "unusable" There was an inspection of the Iraqi arsenal 2 years ago, and nothing was foundROFL! *slaps head*BWWAAAA-hAHAHAHAHAH!! My relatives have a 20 acre plot of land. I could hide 10 crates myself so that not even a dozen people could find them given a whole month.Iraq is 438,317 sq km. This material EXISTED 7 years ago in the HANDS OF HUSSEIN. He needs to give an account for it. YOu think that because a few piddly inspectors are unable to find the material that it automatically means it doesn't exist? UNTIL HE GIVES AN ACCOUNT FOR THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT HE POSSESSED THIS MATERIAL, IT IS RATIONALLY ASSUMED HE STILL HAS IT*good grief, what is wrong with ppl?* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 I'll admit he has to account for the weapons that are known to be there, but the direct reason for the inspection was that the US claimed to have evidence that Iraq was building nuclear weapons. So far we have not seen even a spec of evidence of these ghostly nukes...And what makes you think that he will not use the weapons he has if you invade? One could argue that provoking a currently passive dictator into gassing Tel Aviv isn't protecting anyone from sh1t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 well i think i will be better able to add to this thread after today. For today is the day that Colin Powell is bringing declassified intelligence before the security council. once we know what it is, then I will be better able to respond. so i'll wait for the info and then come back to this thread later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scy Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 LOL....Bush want to full his farm oil barrels!!! ;DIf iraq really have a deadly weapons the americans force won't preparing to attack it!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 From what I'm seeing on television right now, they never found the smoking gun they always said they found. Nor have they any evidence of nuclear weapons, as they initially yelled.And some of those spy photos are months old. It really sucks that the UN has no intelligence themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 It really sucks that the UN has no intelligence themselves. ya, that does suck doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.