Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectRE: who does 'you' refer to?
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=25338&mesg_id=25395
25395, RE: who does 'you' refer to?
Posted by Seenic, Thu Mar-20-03 08:34 PM
>Yes, they were working. Inspectors
>were even griping about the fact
>that they had to leave Iraq because
>the U.S. was going to invade.

The UN has always had an anti-force policy, that's to be expected. They think everything can be worked out diplomatically. History has shown us time and time again that they have little credibility in reagrds to making decisions like these.

>Bullshit. Hans Blix and the numerous
>inspectors who were there argued that
>the inspections were working just fine.

No, Hanz Blix stated that there was "progress", but that Iraqi's were still not fully in compliance. The "progress" came when the troops started building up outside Iraq. Everybody knows that. Didn't you read about the report Blix wrote up? Where he put the instances of Iraqi non-compliance in the very end, and went out of his way to stress "progress"? This is how the UN works. Like I said the UN is ultra-diplomacy, and most of the UN has an anti-American slant to begin with.

They had 11 years. Inspections didn't work for 11 years. When does the time for talking end?

>>No threat whatsoever? you have got to be kidding me.
>>Saddam Hussein gives millions of dollars to the families of
>>suicide bombers, but you seem to be under the impression
>>that this isn't supporting terrorism. You seem to be under
>>the impression the he'd never give any chemical or
>>biological weapons to terrorist groups because "they hate
>>each other, Saddam isn't a religious leader". If they hated
>>each other, and Saddam wasn't an Islamic extremist, or
>>atleast a supportive of those who are, he wouldn't be giving
>>millions of dollars to the families of Islamic extremists
>>who blow up little children in Israel.
>Umm, hello, I asked you what
>threat Iraq poses to the U.S.,
>I didn't say anything about
>Israel. If Saddam is a threat
>to Israel, let Israel fight
>it's own damn battles.

You missed the point completely.

>We might recall the warning of
>General Lee Butler, head of
>Clinton's Strategic Command in
>the early 90s, that "it is dan-
>gerous in the extreme that in
>the cauldron of animosities that
>we call the Middle East, one na-
>tion has armed itself, ostensibly,
>with stockpiles of nuclear weapons,
>perhaps numbering in the hundreds,
>and that inspires other nations to
>do so." He was referring to Israel.

Now this, is way off the topic.

>The new inspectors have searched
>hundreds of places all over Iraq,
>and tested more than 300 chemical
>and biological samples and found
>absolutely no evidence that Iraq
>possesses banned chemical, nuclear
>or biological weapons. All the sites
>that US intelligence said had weapons
>turned out to be empty, and some of
>the inspectors recently told CBS news
>that the information they were getting
>from the US is 'garbage.' The UN insp-
>ectors said that the satellite images
>that the US presented were worthless.

We'll see wont we? When this war is over, we'll see if they have the weapons or not. When we don't have inspectors staying in bugged hotels, followed around by Iraqi officials who's job it is to decieve.

>Quit being a numb skull and grow
>up. Neither Bush nor anyone else
>can CREATE a Palestinian state
>except for the Palestinians them-
>selves. Furthermore, Bush cannot
>establish peace in the Middle East.
>That is a goal that is to be acc-
>omplished by those residing in that

And history has clearly shown that these people are capable of that to, right?

>>Look at the war right now on TV. What's going on? The US
>>isn't mass bombing innocent civilians,
>Heeeeeelloooooo, the war just

Heeeeeeelloooooo, it's not going to happen.

>When all was said and done after the
>1990-91 Gulf War, nearly 200,000 cas-
>ualties had occurred.

Try 100,000 Iraqi soldiers.

200,000 innocent civilians did not die in Desert Storm.