If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Iraq agrees to the unconditional return of UN inspectors
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
News just in .
Let's see if they back off or attempt to obstruct the UN inspectors' efforts.
If they don't, however, the US will no longer have any excuse to attack. Whether Bush will be prepared accept this remains to be seen.
Let's see if they back off or attempt to obstruct the UN inspectors' efforts.
If they don't, however, the US will no longer have any excuse to attack. Whether Bush will be prepared accept this remains to be seen.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Now the game begins again.
I will be most interested to see how it plays out now.
MoK
They have already said that access will only be allowed to Military installations...
Is this unreasonable? I mean, any-where they may be keeping WMD is going to be military, by definition, surely. Unless you are saying commenting on "installations", implying that they will bother with the distiction between, say an instalation and a warehouse.
To be honest, i think yours is the kind of questioning but ultimatly meaningless statement thats is going to be used to continue a military campaign agaisnt Saddam, even when he does what the UN ask of him.
Note that it is possible to use hospitals (biological storage), and chemical factories...
You know that they are already hiding military hardware in 'civilian' areas just in case the US decides to bombs, don't you...
The UN Resolution calls for unrestricted access.
Lol.
But ultimately, you could take that argument on forever. UN ispectors could look wherever they wanted, and couldn't George Bush just say 'Ah, but they must be hiding them somewhere else!'
How will we ever know for sure?
The thing is, of course, that he'll keep us running around as he continues to try to acquire WMDs anyway. At this point we get into the realms of 'prevention, not cure,' as alluded to by MoK above.
And, as I've said before, there's always the black gold underneath Iraq's sands...
Read about the storage of weapons on Grenada in 1983...
Very little in military installations, lots in plain old warehouses...
Annan spoke of the Iraqis offering the return of inspectors "without conditions".
Just ring your local council and for £40 they'll come and do precisely that.
Which kind of ruins your argument. Sorry.
I would like to say that this is a classic one liner. MoK, you are truly gifted.
Its as good as saying, we have them, but not at the military sites.
There's also the issue of the inspectors becomming a human shield of sorts.
Think why they are picking on Iraq and not the other countries it is because America wants to gain complete control of the oil rich Middle East and put in place a regime in Iraq that American companies can do business with! This is really a war about oil!
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
and how many of those countries threaten the US?
have used WMD previously?
flaut a UN resolution directly prohibiting their development of WMD?
and we know that you believe that this is all about oil, and that you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot. Lets take that as read and perhaps then you could change your argument...
Oh, and another thing, do you think any of us actually use the link you add at the end of each post?
As for Saddam, I don't trust him. He knows full well that the Un can't inspect every building.
The only way I'd agree on it is if the inspectors are given British or US troops as escorts and allowed free movement within Iraq.
And how exactly is Iraq a threat to the U.S.?
It isn't, I just made that bit up. :rolleyes:
The WMD we are talking about are easily used, don't need anything more than an aerosol can to use. Iraq has been linked to Al-Qaeda. It certainly has motive.
Nah, no threat there.
As for the other countries, I don't dispute that action should be taken there either. I just don't see it as a reason not to act in this case.
Why?
Its because the US wants a freindly regime in charge of Iraq (and its oil). It doesn't matter whether Saddam has WMDs or not, the US just wants him out and they won't stop until he is replaced.
I don't like Saddam but I don't want a war either. Send in the inspectors, tell the US that there's nothing to worry about. We have an opportunity to stop this madness if only the US would listen to reason.
Becuase this isn't a court of law and because they are the prosecutor here. When have you ever heard the prosecution, armed with their evidence say, actually I think this guy is innocent?
Actually I'd say it was both. Firstly they want a friendly Govt in that region, one that isn't Israel anyway. Secondly a friendly Govt isn't going to want to attack them, even in an underhand way...
Of course, we could also get Sadam to listen to reason instead.
Like that will ever happen :rolleyes:
Maybe you think it was someone else who ordered WMD used against the Kurds? Maybe you think it is someone else who is responsible for the eviction of UN weapon's inspectors? Maybe you think it is someone else who is responsible for firing on US and UK aircraft almost everyday? Maybe you think it is someone else who is responsible for Iraq not keeping the terms of the ceasefire or the UN resolutions that followed it?
A friendly regime means lower oil prices. It means problems for the oil companies. Yet, if we are to believe those who think it is about oil, this is for the oil companies. Doesn't make sense. But then again, neither did the same people claiming that the US commitment in Somalia was about oil, or any number of other claims that all assume that big business is a great conspiracy. Ladies and Gents, the CEOs of ExxonMobil, Unocal, Shell, BP, etc. are too damn busy to have time to conspire in any significant manner. They have businesses to run. That capitilist competition that Steelgate hates.
There is something to worry about.
I mean, the US (via the UN) made a demand, which saddam agreed to. But apparently this is not satifying the US...
So do they keep making more and more demands, until they demand something that Saddam cannot agree to, and then go to war?
I am begining to feel some sympathy for the brutal dictator. (
Maybe this should have started a new thread.
Not exactly true. The resolution calls for complete, unhindered access...not just to sites that Saddam chooses to call military.
Oh and Greenhat, enough about the poor Kurds, like the US gives a crap about the Kurds, or any Iraqi civilians for that matter. If we were truly so magnanimous, then we should invade and overthrow Turkey too since they have murdered Kurds consistently for years under their own pretext.
As much as I love my country, I abhor the mentality of some of my compatriots which thinks we have some god given right to decide every other nation's internal composition simply because it displeases us. We are but one nation amongst many and far more gluttonous and greedy than most demonstrated by our over-consumption and throw-away habits.
If you, Greenhat, don't see the parallel here between Bush's ranting and fuming and war posturing and the schoolyard bully who steals the other kids' lunch money then I feel for you. Whether yoou want to acknowledge it or not, noone gave us the moral justification to do whatever we want in the world just to further pad our own nest at everyone else's expense.
Let's all remember that most of that killing and WMD-bombing of the Kurds happened in 1988. Saddam was at the time the greatest buddy the West could hope for and you didn't hear the U.S. screaming murder then.
It is starting to be the opinion of many independent observers that Iraq's recent offer to allow back the UN inspectors without conditions has wrong-footed the U.S. no end. They haven't even given a proper response yet. All they've done was to dismiss the offer as a trick literally 15 minutes after it was made public by the UN. Considering they couldn't even have time to read the Iraqi statement properly one is tempted to think the U.S. is not interested in the UN going back to Iraq. It would obviously interfere with their agenda.
Earlier tonight Rumsfield said he will seek approval for an attack from Congress even before the UN has given Iraq a deadline or had a chance to send the inspectors in. Apparently Iraq presents 'a great and immediate threat' to the U.S. and its allies. Now, even the most fervent Bush supporter would have to agree that the above statement is the biggest load of bollocks the world has ever seen. At present Andorra would present more of a threat to the U.S. than Iraq. :rolleyes:
There might be a genuine case against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, but the more I hear the U.S. pressing for war relentlessly and talking utter bullshit, the more it becomes clear they are lying through their teeth and acting with ulterior motives.