US hypocrisy - on weapons inspections

[honest intellectual]

The Bush regime claims it wants Iraq to disarm peacefully if possible (they seem to have dropped the talk of 'regime change', maybe someone told them it's an illegal policy), yet they want to get the weapons inspectors out. The weapons inspectors can help get Iraq's illegal weapons destroyed, as proven by the Al-Samoud missiles

[RedComrade]

The thing i dont quite understand is if we can say for sure they have weapons of mass destruction than why cant we find them, and if we cant actually find them than how can we say with the certanty needed to go to war that they do. If we are actively seeking to contain arms proliferation would it not make more since to target N. Korea (not that i want to), a major backbone of the koreans economay is arms manufacturing which they have been known to seel to the highest bidder, if we were fighting for progress democracy and civil liberties we would attack Sudan a state ruled by murderous fundamentalists were slavery is still legal, and if we were going to neutralize a threat we would also attack N. Korea who is not only actively seeking nukes but is also threatening a major war and can strike at 4 of our major allies, the hypocrisy here is as transparent as it is disturbing...

[Blibblob]

They dont have any weapons of mass destruction. They have two missles.
"UN inspectors certified that 817 out of the 819 Iraqi long-range missiles were destroyed" back in 1991.
"The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme had been eliminated “efficiently and effectively”."
And "the Security Council recorded that Iraq’s main biological weapons facilities (supplied originally by the US and Britain) “have been destroyed and rendered harmless.” "

Quotes taken from http://free.freespeech.org/americanstatete...sAboutIraq.html (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/ThreeLiesAboutIraq.html)

[Pete]

The problem is that if the weapons inspectors find weapons of mass destructions they have to take them apart anyways. Their would be no need for war unless Iraq is hiding them. So the longer they are in the more chance the 'hidden' (I'm skeptical that they exist) weapon supplies will be found and dismantled peacefully.

[RedPirate]

Indeed, there is no weapon(s) of mass destruction, anyways... The biggest right now is North Korea, justified by '91 Dubya just wants to finish daddy's work, And What about all the other countries with Nuclear Capabilities? Exactly... He knows they would get there shit kicked.

[Pete]

North Korea has every right to have Nuclear weapons. They made a treaty with America to dismantle their program and never look back... that is in exchange for 2 nuclear power reactors by 2001(or 2000). America has not started work on the reactors yet, therefore have renaged the treaty. If anyone is to blame for North Korea obtaining Nukes, it is America for ignoring their international commitments.

[Blibblob]

Its never worth trusting americans to do their part, they will always slap you in the face.

[RedPirate]

Indeed, I didn't mean North Korea is doing secretly and Illegal. I'm just saying it our fault we're in this mess. Its all about how they like you one minute, then turn their back the next...

[Pete]

Are you meaning that the DPRK liked America? AHHH I cannot think!

[HankMorgan]

The weapons inspectors can help get Iraq's illegal weapons destroyed, as proven by the Al-Samoud missiles


The key element in the successful destruction of the Al-Samound missiles is the 200,000+ American soldiers putting some teeth in the UN resolutions. Credit that success to President Bush. He has succeeded where President Clinton failed in 1998.

However, keeping an army of more than 200,000 soldiers on a knife's edge just outside Iraq is not tenable for any length of time. Hussein will either have to be trusted or removed.

The hell of it is that if everyone had lined up in support of the United Nations' resolutions, Saddam Hussein could have been removed peacefully, without a war. I see irony in the way the peace movement in no small measure prevented the most peaceful solution.

Nice work people.

[Pete]

In 1998 Clinton pulled the inspectors out screamed 'violation' and bombed Iraq. It was not Saddam who kicked the inspectors out.

[Old Friend]

The weapons inspectors can help get Iraq's illegal weapons destroyed, as proven by the Al-Samoud missiles.

Ha Ha Ha! There really is a sucker born every minute. Perhaps I should give up my efforts to enlighten you with the truth and start capitalizing on the stupidity of people like you.

[Old Friend]

In 1998 Clinton pulled the inspectors out screamed 'violation' and bombed Iraq. It was not Saddam who kicked the inspectors out.

Check the sources at the time that this happened. They are conflicting, which adds further fuel to the credibility problem our press faces at this time. However, I choose to use the State Department fact sheet, which also states they were pulled out. What's your point? Are you trying to use this as reason why we should not remove Saddam? That's just ridiculous.

[Pete]

I'm just making sure everyone understands that fact.

[Old Friend]

Well, I just want you to understand that it makes little difference. Pulled out or kicked out, the problem remains the same. You should also understand that they were pulled out because of Saddam's noncompliance, and that it was determined that the inspectors ability to do their jobs were so hindered that it was necessary to do this, as we were about to conduct strikes on weapons sights. This was a weak response to years of a flagrant disregard for the 12 or so U.N. resolutions, on the part of the Iraqis. Therfore, they were virtually kicked out as a result of Saddam impeding their efforts.

[RedPirate]

Obviously, Iraq is working with inspectors, they are working and I still think... No War... and if they can't have them, why can we?

[HankMorgan]

Quote: from RedPirate on 2:22 pm on Mar. 2, 2003
Obviously, Iraq is working with inspectors, they are working and I still think... No War... and if they can't have them, why can we?

Again I point out the 200,000 American soldiers idling their tanks. Tanks which are pointed at Bagdad. This is why the inspections are working. No idling tanks, no inspections. Tanks cannot idle forever. They must go into Iraq or back on a ship.

Let's come at it from another angle. The inspections are working because President Bush has created a believable threat. If it wasn't believable the anti-war types would be protesting something else.

RedPirate, do you want to spend the rest of your days protesting a war that never happens?

[Old Friend]

and if they can't have them, why can we

Moron! Because Iraq invaded Kuwait, and spawned a campaign comprised of the largest coalition force in history. When Saddam's Republican guard was decimated he signed a cease-fire agreement, where one of the many conditions was for him to rid himself of the weapons of mass destruction he had been building. Over ten years later, and after 18 different resolutions he still has not abided by the agreement, so it becomes necessary for us to go to war to disarm him, and liberate the Iraqi people.

After 9-11, more attention has been paid to Saddam and his connection to terrorist organizations throughout history. The prospect of him giving Vx, smallpox, anthrax, or other deadly weapons to assault our population is too real a possibility to be ignored. Check out the literature, Saddam has had historical ties to many terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda is the reorganization and alliance of many of the terror networks, which Saddam has had ties to in the past, into a more efficient cabal.

The two largest goals of Al Qaeda is the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel and the United States. These fanatical Islamists have openly stated that they openly practice Jihad, and they aim to either convert or destroy their enemies. If you think you are safe because you live in Europe, then you would be wrong. The United States, being the pinnacle of the Western world, is the primary target. However, they also see Christian Europe as a source of corruption. As American culture spreads, and neon signs seem to be invading their "holy" lands, Islamists become more prone to practice Jihad once again.

If you want to talk about great empires, let's talk about Muslims. By far, they are one of the most viralent religions and cultures to have ever existed. The concept of Jihad is not a new one, as their religion swept across Eurasia, Africa, the Middle East, and Indonesia by way of the sword, from 500-1300 A.D.. It still expands violently in this modern day and age. If you don't believe that Islamists want to acquire the technological means by which they can once again spread by way of conquering, you are mistaken. This is why countries like Pakistan, with the first Islamic bomb, and Iraq should be watched closely.

I know that Saddam is not the hardline Islamic fundamentalist that some in the Saudi royal family are, but these differences could be temporarily set aside in order to crush their common enemy. Certainly, they could agree to battle each other at a later date, out of recognition that neither one will possess the ability to gain any ground while a superpower like the United States remains strong.

In WWII, 55 million people died. Over half of the deaths were civilian. Imagine what the death toll could be if we allow the environmental conditions to exist for another world war. If you think that being a civilian will save you, and that the war will remain in military theatres, you are again mistaken. What this new era of global terrorism has proved is that the Islamists will not hesitate to directly target western civilization in an effort to weaken our resolve to confront the danger that they pose. This holds for any modern day democracy, or westernized country. They would like nothing better than to have the kind of destructive capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed in the past 25 years. Think about that the next time you go apologizing for Saddam, or comparing Iraq's government with the United States. You fools!

(Edited by Old Friend at 2:03 am on Mar. 3, 2003)

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from HankMorgan on 11:45 pm on Mar. 2, 2003

Quote: from RedPirate on 2:22 pm on Mar. 2, 2003
Obviously, Iraq is working with inspectors, they are working and I still think... No War... and if they can't have them, why can we?

Again I point out the 200,000 American soldiers idling their tanks. Tanks which are pointed at Bagdad. This is why the inspections are working. No idling tanks, no inspections. Tanks cannot idle forever. They must go into Iraq or back on a ship.

Let's come at it from another angle. The inspections are working because President Bush has created a believable threat. If it wasn't believable the anti-war types would be protesting something else.

RedPirate, do you want to spend the rest of your days protesting a war that never happens?
I'm not opposed to the threat of war, there is nothin immoral about that, but I am opposed to war.

[HankMorgan]

I'm not opposed to the threat of war, there is nothin immoral about that, but I am opposed to war.

I believe it was Napolean Bonaparte who said one can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

If you don't want war then the tanks roll back on the ship and Hussein must be trusted.

[Pete]

I remember hearing a speech from one of the Inspectors from 1998, he stated that they where having minor difficulties but they would continue, and then Clinton told them to stop. There was no need for them to stop other then so Clinton could show his fancy toys to the world. The inspector said as much. This speech was in October or Novemeber in Vancouver. The speaker/former inspector was American, and also said that if Bush kept pushing for war and refused to let the inspectors do their job it iwll prove the UN is a pawn to America.

[Old Friend]

I remember hearing a speech from one of the Inspectors from 1998, he stated that they where having minor difficulties but they would continue, and then Clinton told them to stop. There was no need for them to stop other then so Clinton could show his fancy toys to the world. The inspector said as much. This speech was in October or Novemeber in Vancouver. The speaker/former inspector was American, and also said that if Bush kept pushing for war and refused to let the inspectors do their job it iwll prove the UN is a pawn to America.

I will just take your word for it, now won't I? Yeah right. Provide a source, and be sure that it isn't Ritter.

[Pete]

I will look. Rememer it was a TV interview in November or so. On the CBC or the CTV. But I will post back when I find it, or something similiar.

By the way who is Ritter?