How Saddam Failed The Yeltsin Test - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-23-2004, 06:07 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
I still think removing Saddam was in the best interest for the people in Iraq and peace in the region in the long run

the reasons presented why he just HAD to be removed when we did smells like a smelly skunk who is not welcomed anymore in the skunk community because he stinks too much


granted there are no UN resolutions against The Netherlands as far as I'm aware
but if we were asked to show evidence that we have dismantled weapons of mass destruction we supposedly have according to secret information we don't know about, we would probably be in trouble
I think your failing to understand a fundamental point here. The United Nations Weapons inspectors found thousands of stocks of WMD and WMD related materials over a 7 year period of inspections from 1991 to 1998 in Saddam's Iraq. When the Inspectors were kicked out in 1998, there were still a thousand liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells among other things. Saddam admitted having these materials around that time as well.

Fastforward to 2002 and inspectors are back in the country thanks to Bush and the inspectors attempt to continue to work on the disarmament issue where they had left off in 1998. But this time Saddam claims that he destroyed the WMD he had between 1998 and 2002 yet offers no evidence of this. Essentially "the dog ate my homework" excuse. Most teachers won't except that excuse, nor should the international community attempting to insure the disarmament of one of the worst dictators in history.

What STINKS to high heaven is this idea that Saddam was innocent on this issue or that the United States had to prove something. No member state of the international community had to prove anything. It was up to Saddam to prove to the world that he had disarmed of all WMD and Saddam DID HAVE THE MEANS TO DO THAT!

The terms of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire never stated that the United States or any other member state of the UN had to prove that Iraq had this particular WMD or that particular WMD. It stated that Saddam had to Verifiably disarm of all WMD or face renewed military action as outlined by resolution 678.

Verifiable Disarmament is not some impossible task. Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakstan, and South Africa all verifiably disarmed with the help of UN inspectors in under a year or two. Of course these disarmaments were voluntary but followed essentially the same procedures that were available to Saddam.

Saddam is the leader that invaded and attacked four different countries. Saddam is the leader that used WMD more times in history than any other leader. Saddam is the leader that murdered 1.7 million people. Saddam is the leader that threatened the worlds energy supply and global economy with total ruin.

The United Nations in light of these facts approved a number of resolutions and a ceacefire agreement that forced Saddam to verifiably disarm of all WMD or face renewed military action. The only thing that STINKS is that the whole process of disarming Saddam took 12 years. If there is to be criticism on the whole issue, its that the international community should have acted sooner than it did. It was obvious by 1998, that Saddam had no serious intention of disarming.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-23-2004, 07:20 PM   #17
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I think your failing to understand a fundamental point here.
I don't think I do
I am not big on news stories
but by now I do have a fair idea od what Saddam had been up to

fact remains
those UN resolutions weren't new
but according to the allies (the netherlands being one of them) it would have been dangerous to wait any longer to act because there was imminent threat of Saddam attacking all of us

now unless Saddam has really bad breath there isn't much evidence that he did pose any threat
that evidence is as bleak as whatever Saddam has presented as evidence that he destroyed any weapons
__________________

__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 07-23-2004, 08:03 PM   #18
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

I think your failing to understand a fundamental point here.
The point is?
In our lifes it's innocent until proven guilty in politics the one with more WMDs can turn it into guilty until proven innocent?
This is no Bush bashing because it wasn't invented by Mr. Bush, it wasn't invented by republicans, not even by americans. There were many empires before who did it that way.
The Post WWII Balance of power and because of that the need for international regulations was a historical anormality.
But people like it and many governments try to go on with that path.

Uh i'm really getting offtopic here

A_Wanderer:
What did you want to tell us with that picture? That Saddams face looked hapier when he welcomed Mr. Arafat than on the pictures where Saddam welcomed Mr. Rumsfeld?
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-23-2004, 08:24 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
I don't think I do
I am not big on news stories
but by now I do have a fair idea od what Saddam had been up to

fact remains
those UN resolutions weren't new
but according to the allies (the netherlands being one of them) it would have been dangerous to wait any longer to act because there was imminent threat of Saddam attacking all of us

now unless Saddam has really bad breath there isn't much evidence that he did pose any threat
that evidence is as bleak as whatever Saddam has presented as evidence that he destroyed any weapons
The United Nations determined in 1991 that Saddam was a big enough of a threat that he had to be disarmed, with military force if needed. The threat had always been there from day 1. The International community wanted to resolve and remove the threat without the use of military force. It tried to do that for many years, but ultimately failed in achieving that goal, largely because Saddam completely stopped all cooperation at the end of 1998. That is why military force became the only option for achieving full disarmament. Waiting would have been irresponsible in light of the facts.

It is a fact that Saddam failed to disclose where thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells are. It would be irresponsible to assume given Saddam's prior behavior that he destroyed this stuff and to simply take his word for it.

I remind you that Saddam still had one of the largest Military forces in the Middle East with over 400,000 troops and 2,700 Main Battle Tanks prior to the invasion in 2003. Combined with large Stocks of WMD, this did pose a threat that had to be dealt with.

If you think Saddam posed no threat, then I'm not sure there is anything in this world you could see as a threat. If you still think Saddam was harmless, I can go into far greater detail.

Remember, Saddam invaded and attacked 4 different countries, and murdered over 1.7 million people. You think he posed no more threat than bad breath, I think not.

The international community saw Saddam as a threat after the Gulf War in 1991. That is why they made Saddam sign a ceacefire agreement in which he was required to verifiably disarm or else face renewed military action. The criteria for whether there would be war again or not would be based on the evidence that Saddam produced and that evidence alone!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-23-2004, 08:29 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus


The point is?
In our lifes it's innocent until proven guilty in politics the one with more WMDs can turn it into guilty until proven innocent?
This is no Bush bashing because it wasn't invented by Mr. Bush, it wasn't invented by republicans, not even by americans. There were many empires before who did it that way.
The Post WWII Balance of power and because of that the need for international regulations was a historical anormality.
But people like it and many governments try to go on with that path.

Uh i'm really getting offtopic here

A_Wanderer:
What did you want to tell us with that picture? That Saddams face looked hapier when he welcomed Mr. Arafat than on the pictures where Saddam welcomed Mr. Rumsfeld?
The point is that The international community saw Saddam as a threat after the Gulf War in 1991. That is why they made Saddam sign a ceacefire agreement in which he was required to verifiably disarm or else face renewed military action. The criteria for whether there would be war again or not would be based on the evidence that Saddam produced and that evidence alone!
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com