VisorCentral.com

Pages (10): « First ... « 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Powell (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=32028)

Posted by yardie on 03-09-2003 01:22 AM:

Bush want Saddam gone whether he proves that he is disarm or not. It is not difficult for the warmongers to cook up something.

quote:
Originally posted by MarkEagle
The inspectors are NOT there to find weapons... they are there to find EVIDENCE of their destruction.

Time is not the issue. If Iraq has truly destroyed said weapons, and they can document it, why haven't they done so? Why the stall tactics? Does anyone really think that the Al Samoud 2 missles are the only weapons that the Iraqi's forgot to destroy?

If the inspectors were there to ferret out prohibited weapons, then I'd agree that more time was warranted. However, after 12 years, time is no longer an option. It's time to come clean and prove (conclusively) that they don't exist.

This in no way means that I want to see a war... I truly believe it can still be avoided, but that choice lies solely with the Iraqi leadership. The proverbial ball is in their court.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by K. Cannon on 03-10-2003 02:44 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Were the inspectors there for 12 years?

If I'm not mistaken, they were, um, uninvited?

quote:
Why didn't they set a deadline for the inspectors BEFORE they send them in?

Good point.
Ask your friends at the U.N.

MarkEagle's right...Iraq needs to show evidence that they destroyed all of their WMD, as they were told to do by the United Nations. The impetus should not have to be on the United Nations to figure out that what they had, where they were, and what they did with them. The burden of proof lies here ON IRAQ.

What does Saddam do? Goes on Sixty Minutes II and insists that he didn't lose the Gulf War and that he pulled out of Kuwait voluntarily, b/c he "wanted to."

Way to show your innocence there, big guy.

Posted by m00se on 03-19-2003 02:25 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Powell

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

So it is ok to kill somebody because they MAY kill somebody??

MAY?! Perhaps you should ask the Kurds if Saddam MAY have killed thousands of them!

I oppose the war but please don't give Sadam excuses for being what he is: Tyrant, murderer and buffoon.
m00se

__________________
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
-Mark Twain

Posted by ToolkiT on 03-19-2003 03:36 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Powell

quote:
Originally posted by m00se

MAY?! Perhaps you should ask the Kurds if Sadam MAY have killed thousands of them!
I oppose the war but please don't give Sadam excuses for being what he is: Tyrant, murderer and buffoon.
m00se

Yes Saddam is Tyrant, murderer and buffoon.
But the justification Bush is using, is that he is a thread to the US... I was refering to that.
I totally agree Saddam should be dealt with, however Bush' logic fails...

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by K. Cannon on 03-19-2003 01:09 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Powell

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

Yes Saddam is Tyrant, murderer and buffoon.
But the justification Bush is using, is that he is a thread to the US... I was refering to that.
I totally agree Saddam should be dealt with, however Bush' logic fails...

Ah! ToolkiT, that makes some sense to me.

Perhaps Bush is using the "logic" that he thinks the American people will most buy into? Just a thought, given that he is a politician. The problem is, I think most Americans (I know, anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all) feel the way you do: Saddam is Evil and should be dealt with, well, because Saddam is Evil. Not necessarily b/c we think he is secretly Mr. Number Two of Al-Quida and is about to launch missiles at San Francisco.

Also, I think we are concerned about *keeping* him from developing nukes.

Posted by yardie on 03-22-2003 02:50 PM:

I think the resolution 1441 tp send the inspectors in was watered down by the US so that it would get approval by the UN Security Council. I think that the insepctors should have given more time. The whole inspections thing was a charade since there presence there was being undermined by the administration -- namely Rumsfield, by the very start.

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

If I'm not mistaken, they were, um, uninvited?
Good point.
Ask your friends at the U.N.

Way to show your innocence there, big guy.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-22-2003 04:09 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
The whole inspections thing was a charade since there presence there was being undermined by the administration -- namely Rumsfield, by the very start.

Undermined? Without the US threat of force they never would have been there in the first place. Remember the first 11.5 years?

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by MarkEagle on 03-22-2003 07:06 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
I think the resolution 1441 tp send the inspectors in was watered down by the US so that it would get approval by the UN Security Council.

I seem to recall that resolution being passed unanimously. If anyone on the Security Council felt it was watered down, why on earth did they approve it?

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

Posted by yardie on 03-22-2003 08:23 PM:

I think you gor yout chronology all wrong. The inspectors were there before the force, not the other way around. Adding to this, sending so much force there showed that it was the U.S's intention to invade regardless of what happened.

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Undermined? Without the US threat of force they never would have been there in the first place. Remember the first 11.5 years?

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 03-22-2003 08:24 PM:

They approved it because it was watered down. It wouldn't have passed unanimously if it was any stronger -- everyone knows that.

quote:
Originally posted by MarkEagle
I seem to recall that resolution being passed unanimously. If anyone on the Security Council felt it was watered down, why on earth did they approve it?

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-22-2003 09:06 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
I think you gor yout chronology all wrong. The inspectors were there before the force, not the other way around. Adding to this, sending so much force there showed that it was the U.S's intention to invade regardless of what happened.

You're serious? You think Iraq let in inspectors out of the goodness of their hearts, to follow the UN mandate?

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by MarkEagle on 03-22-2003 09:19 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
They approved it because it was watered down.

Resolution 1441 said: prove there are no (not "let us look for") weapons of mass destruction or "face serious consequences"... where's the water in that? It may not be specific in terms of time, or what those "consequences" are, but I don't see how it's watered down.

quote:
It wouldn't have passed unanimously if it was any stronger

Are you suggesting that the UN Security Council is made up of a bunch of milquetoast's?

The use of force was NOT what France, Russia, etc, were complaining about. Didn't they all want to see more time given to diplomacy (and the inspectors) first?

quote:
everyone knows that

Everyone MINUS one...

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

Posted by K. Cannon on 03-22-2003 09:54 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
I think the resolution 1441 tp send the inspectors in was watered down by the US so that it would get approval by the UN Security Council. I think that the insepctors should have given more time. The whole inspections thing was a charade since there presence there was being undermined by the administration -- namely Rumsfield, by the very start.

My reference to the uninvited inspectors was to the ones who were there 12 years ago. If I am not mistaken (perish the thought

), weren't they shown the door by Saddam?

Open to correction here if incorrect--this is my perception based on my (faulty) memory.

Posted by Toby on 03-22-2003 10:04 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
I think you gor yout chronology all wrong. The inspectors were there before the force, not the other way around. [...]

Quite the contrary. Your chronology is twisted all about. The force went there in 1991. Inspectors followed. They were blocked and stymied by lack of cooperation for 7 years and then were expelled. They were then not allowed back in until force was threatened again. When it started to look like France, Russia, and China would stymie force again, the lack of cooperation resurfaced, much like the SCUDs launched at Kuwait which were supposedly destroyed after 1991. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Posted by K. Cannon on 03-22-2003 10:19 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
much like the SCUDs launched at Kuwait which were supposedly destroyed after 1991.

I have been most curious why there seems to be no mention by other countries about this point.

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-22-2003 10:26 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

I have been most curious why there seems to be no mention by other countries about this point.

From what I've heard, there are only suspicions that Scuds were used. No proof yet. Of course it may just be that everyone knew all along he had banned weapons....

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by K. Cannon on 03-22-2003 10:31 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
From what I've heard, there are only suspicions that Scuds were used. No proof yet.

from my limited understanding of military terms (which I pester my poor husband about every time we watch the news and therefore might just have all wrong as my answers are ones generated to hush me up), aren't the missiles by definition scuds? i thought that was a generic term for the type of missile fired, not a "brand name" (for lack of a better term)

quote:
Of course it may just be that everyone knew all along he had banned weapons....

gasp...what?! you mean--Saddam *is in possession of* banned weapons?!?

Posted by Toby on 03-22-2003 10:38 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
I have been most curious why there seems to be no mention by other countries about this point.

Well, the defense department was downplaying it initially saying that they were probably Samoud-1s. The Kuwaitis suggested that a couple were SCUDs. As things have gone along, the Pentagon's sending more indications that a couple of them were SCUDs. Also, some news organizations and other countries are probably just dismissing it as US propaganda. Personally, I find it rather fascinating what is being reported in some forums as opposed to others. For example, I saw a brief video snippet of some comments from Hans Blix which I've not seen reported anywhere.

Posted by K. Cannon on 03-22-2003 10:43 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Also, some news organizations and other countries are probably just dismissing it as US propaganda.

which, I admit, there has to be some spinning going on (both ways)

quote:
Personally, I find it rather fascinating what is being reported in some forums as opposed to others. For example, I saw a brief video snippet of some comments from Hans Blix which I've not seen reported anywhere.

Saying what?

I agree that the difference in sources is very intriguing. Someone posted a link to a pro-Arab site which had interesting op/ed articles comparing the US to the Roman and British Empires. It was a mind-opening read.

Frankly, given my profession and my darned-stubborn nature, I am doing Yardie and ToolkT and others quite proud--in Happy Hour discussions, I am often the lone voice with the "other side"--not that I am endorsing it, but offering it up for consideration and discussion.

Posted by K. Cannon on 03-22-2003 10:44 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Well, the defense department was downplaying it initially saying that they were probably Samoud-1s. The Kuwaitis suggested that a couple were SCUDs.

Okay. Am I wrong in my understanding of what a scud missile is?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:46 AM.

Pages (10): « First ... « 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page