US/UK Iraq weapons and lies

[Guest NickInTheNorth]

Hi Folks

 

Just thought I'd see if we could straighten out a few misconceptions about the potential war in Iraq.

 

UN Resolutions, there have been 17 of these over the past 14 years all of which are mandatory all of which call on Iraq to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction. The first one 14 years ago offered Sadam a "final opportunity" to comply.

 

Anyone that thinks the final opportunity to get rid without war has only been there for the past few months since November is deluding themselves.

 

In all that time there has been no serious attempt to comply.

 

UN Inspectors. Anyone ever taken the trouble to read the paperwork about what their job is? It is quite simply put to observe, advise and assist in the destruction of WMD. It is not their job to FIND them. Sadam is supposed to give full co-operation, including detailing what he has got, where they are etc. So far he hasn't bothered, other than the day before Hans Blix is due to make any sort of statement to the UN when he makes a small token gesture.

 

US/UK only care about the oil. The 2 countries with the largest stake in the oil business in Iraq are...

 

 

Yes you guessed it...

 

 

France and Russia!!!

 

Aren't those 2 of the countries that are desperate to avoid war I hear you ask? Yes, but surely only from a humanitarian point of view. They wouldn't have any economic interest in not having a war before they get their greedy little mits on the profits from the new oil fields in the deserts of western Iraq would they.

 

 

The interviews with the Scientists. Of course Sadam would like his scientists to talk to the inspectors. After all they don't have anything to hide. They are the ones that destroyed all the WMD and forgot to complete the paper work. It really is a shame that they all really hate the US/UK and therefore won't co-operate with the inspectors. It would just make life that teeny bit more tolerable for their fellow Iraqis if they co-operate, but what the heck...

 

 

Or, heaven forbid, you don't think for one minute do you that Sadam is lying do you? His scientific friends wouldn't by any chance know that there is still a very active weapons programme being pursued by Iraq would they? They wouldn't know where all the mysteriously disappeared biological and nerve agents are would they? They wouldn't have been told to keep quiet and refuse to talk or face being killed along with all their family in some seriously barbaric way would they? Of course not, after all Sadam managed to persuade one of them to talk to the inspectors yesterday on the same day that Hans Blix was addressing the UN...

 

 

Now don't get me wrong, sitting here in this quiet wee internet cafe in Fort William I really do not want a war. I do not think any sane person wants one. I am absolutely convinced that Tony Blair doesn't want one. But the facts have got to be faced.

 

Sadam has stocks of WMD. He is prepared to use them, and has used them before. He is making no effort to rid himself of the weapons as mandated to do by the global community in the form of the UN, and has made no effort to do so over the past 14 years. He has ambitions (documented) to become a regional "super power". Sanctions have not worked (they have simply destroyed a developed, intelligent and creative nation). Containment has not worked, (he has been shopping for nuclear material over the past 14 years). He has a larger standing army now that at the commencement of the gulf war.

 

He has not responded to international pressure to disarm, and will not. He does respond to threats of force, if he genuinely believes that force will be used.

 

Many argue that the use of force would be wrong until such time as all other means have been explored. They make it sound as though they believe that Sadam is mis-understood, and only wishes to be given an opportunity to fully co-operate. They present the US/UK and their many allies as war hungry savages desperate to murder women and children in there thousands.

 

To all the anti war heros out there I simply pose one question.

 

Why not back a call for a simple, unequivocal UN resolution, something along the lines of:

 

"Unless you begin a total transparent and honest disarmament within the next 14 days, including free access to any and all inspectors sent anywhere within Iraq, including military units to protect and assist such inspectors then we the international community, as embodied within the United Nations, will enforce our collective will by whatever means are necessary, including the use of overwhelming military force against all legitimate targets."

 

Iraq have been given 14 years to rid themselves of WMD and have proved themselves unwilling to do so. If the UN is ever to have any real credibility with ruthless despotic heads of state then it is essential that they now take a stand and enforce there collective will as documented over the past 14 years. They have said time and again that all WMD in Iraq must be got rid of. The time for insisting has passed, the time for enforcement has arrived.

 

God bless the people of Iraq, and those brave men sent to enforce the collective will of the nations of the world.

 

I only hope that the war is brief, and that as few lives as possible are lost. My prayers will not however extend to the man responsible for this totally unnecessary war - Sadam Hussain - may he rot in hell.

 

I'll be home on monday to see what sort of a hornets nest that has stirred up!

[yoxer]

we do not have any where near " the collective will of the nations of the world." fortunately they can see through the propaganda as written above

[Peter Gowman]

Maybe I'm a bit slow, but try as I might I can't find any ambiguous propoganda in the words 'final opportunity'.

All I see is the unwillingness of nations to stand by resolutions that they have already put their names to.

[yoxer]

Yeah well unless you have the proof that no one else can come up with , try this one for starters ....."Sadam has stocks of WMD." That is what is called propaganda my friend !

[chesters1]

a couple of points

"other" countries have even more mandates against them

the missiles now in the news are not wmd only the method of transporting them ,therefore not an issue in the wmd debate but could have a longer range than permitted (not proven)

is the law "guilty till proven innocent"

why SHOULD he comply with any third party , if i broke the law in 1990? and paid the punishments (sanctions etc) then a copper knocked on my door tomorrow and said " right mate were going to search your place , prove you DONT have anything naughty" i would as you would get pretty upset and try my hardest to get back by NOT helping them (after all how do i prove i havent anything )if they search the place and find nothing i`m still guilty because i MIGHT be hiding something :confused:

on a lighter note a slip was made by a american when asked about how long the yanks could be incontrol of the "new" iraq a figure of maybe 8 years was mentioned ,whoops just the thing for arabs to hear.

the curdish problem occured when they were on irans side in the iran/iraq war ,in war all is fair and i would of gassed the enemy without thought (as we and most other countries have done in the past)

if i was saddam i would state i had a nuclear device ,america and its alies would head for the hills just as they have with isreal,india,pakistan and now n/korea ,if they can hit back then they become of no consequence

i do not like saddam nor his ways i can only hope that america gets out asap after , but i suspect as with afghanistan civil war will break out and give more fuel to our terrorist foes.

[Cranfield]

There are one or two problems I have in deciding my stance, on this coming war.

 

I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein is an evil man.

There are many rulers/leaders of countries, who are just as evil.

Why do we not invade them ?

 

For 14 years, there have been mandatory resolutions from the UN, telling Iraq to destroy its Weapons of Mass Destruction.

In those 14 years ,I have never felt threatened by Iraq.

I have felt threatened by the IRA.

 

There are no proved links between Iraq and the September 11th atrocity in New York.

 

The, "If you are not with us, you are against us" rhetoric, I find alarming.

Surely,one of the first principles of democracy, is debate and the right to question your Governments actions.

 

Its a pity that to "free" the innocent Iraqi people, we are going to have to kill a lot of them.

 

If the UN doesn,t pass the second resolution and the USA and UK attack anyway, what "punishment" will be administered by the UN ?

I think none, that will signal the end of the UN.

 

There are a number of political/economic issues regarding oil, diversionary tactics etc, that also cloud the waters.

 

I really want to believe we are doing the right thing.

But, I,m not sure.

[chesters1]

not having a go ahead has never stopped us ,look at bosnia etc ,technically WE invaded another country for no reason :confused:

you could say ethnic cleansing but the title "ethnic" albanians or whatever gives it away the "ethnic" term should warn people that they come from another country not the one the`r residing in "ethnic albanians" come from albania :confused: who` invaded who :confused:

another strange thing is the fact if we go to war WE (as with croats,albanians etc) could get 500,000 iraqi asylum seekers :confused: surley if were sorting out the oppresive regime they are so afraid of WHY would they come here :confused: and now nasty chaps in balkan countries have gone why are immegrants from the balkans still here ,THEY HAVE NO REASON TO STAY ANYMORE :confused:

[poledark]

I am not convinced that the Iraqui people are as innocent and oppressed as we are led to believe. Where were all the protestors when Sadam (and his people) invaded Kuwait?

Yes Yoxer, he has invaded Kuwait, and he did it to get their oil, not so that he could sell it to the west cheaply either.

 

Many of his citizens went to Kuwait after the invasion and looted and stole anything they could get their thieving hands on, and make no mistake, the Iraqui's would do the same to us if we were not so strongly armed.

Oh yes, there are some Iraqui's who are opposed to Sadam and I understand their fear, but I do believe that if they were in the majority then they would have been able to get Sadam out.

 

If America wanted Iraq's oil then they could simply buy it, they could outbid anyone else. They have no trouble buying the stuff anywhere else.

Quite simply, Sadam is a pain in the backside and has already attacked two of his neighbors, murdered many of his own countrymen (and women) and unfortunately sits on the largest oil reserves in the world.

 

I have said before that I can't understand why the man (and his people) hate USA, most of them aspire to the good life as represented by the West with its freedom to practise whatever form of worship you wish, but then I know quite a number of (mostly young) people in this country that also seem to hate USA. Doesn't stop them from buying their music and watching their films or adopting their clothing habits.

 

If we the British had that much oil we would not feel the need to invade another country.

 

I am in favour of this "war" because as we move into the 21st century with our increasingly sophistaced and healthy society noone can be allowed to threaten us.

 

Think on this if you would...If the UN was united and strong in policing the world, acted with swiftness and determination when a problem arose, then would not the world be a safer place for everyone?

 

That is Tony Blairs dream, formulated at the time of the Kosova crisis, and just imagine how that little skirmish would have escalated if USA UK had not stepped in. Thank Tony Blair for that alone.

With good planning this war will be short and swift, I do not see that Baghdad need be bombed,very few civilians will be hurt and probably very little damage done to the civilian areas. Simply a massive and unstoppable movement of troops and weapons which will simply roll over Sadams pathetic and cowardly army.

 

By the way Yoxer, Ann Cluyid(?) made her judgement after visiting Iraq and seeing at first hand the evil that was perpetrated by Sadam AND HIS PEOPLE on the Kurds.

 

Den

[chesters1]

wasnt kuwait part of "iraq/persia" till the brits stole it in 1913

your right about the "people" even the most evil dictator cannot stand without the backing of the masses , hitler was a god to his people ( those nice blond ones ofcourse) and it was with the peoples backing he got away with what he did , with the "peoples" help lec w ?? got rid of the russians and once the people were involved that dictator (beginns with a "chi" )chap and his mrs were publicly executed ( and even on sky before it was cencored) unfortunatly we welcome the "people" to this country with open arms having not a clue to their background (or not caring) america wouldnt have had space flight without "people" little did they care what their new freinds had been upto (v1 / v2) nor how many their friends had slaughtered (mostly us), guilty we all are let the innocent cast the first stone

 

[ 01. March 2003, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[poledark]

Once again Chesters you have missed the point, my question was Why cant wealthy people live in peace? The other point I made was that we now live in the 21st century and have the possibility of a powerful UN force to keep the peace.

 

We could of course just go on and on quoting things that happened in the past, like the Irish, and that little problem was only brought to some level of sanity after 9/11 when thankfully the USA realised that the IRA were terrorists as well.

Noone is perfect but at some time in the earths history someone has to take the lead in peacekeeping and I believe that Blair and BUsh see this as the right time.

 

Den