100% PRO WAR = 0% INTELLIGENT

I suppose it does not matter what we find,some people will never believe.Lets see now.we have U2 photos,drones capable of spraying chemical weapons(which Blix didn't tell the UN about)defectors telling us that Saddam is will use chemical weapons if Iraq is attacked(thought they didn't have these weapons)cluster bombs made for chemical weapons,and Saddams ties to terrorism.
Saddam has been playing cat and mouse for 12 years now.He has not proved to anybody that he has disarmed.

Let me see...

we have U2 photos of Iraq. Damning...

They have chemical weapons drones, 1 of which they're not allowed to have, and it didn't get into Blix's report (nothing to do with the fact that Blix only found out about it shortly before he published the report, of course)

We have defectors... oh my god... they'll be totally unbiased.

cluster bombs... do we? I haven't seen any evidence of that. They had some empty artillery shells that could have been used for chemical weapons. But equally they could have been filled with C4...

Frankly, Get some bloody evidence!

Inspectors Find Banned Iraqi Bombs
www.foxnews.com...

Blix buried in 173 page document.So he did know about it.

Can you prove that Saddam has diarmed?
Do you have any links to where all of Saddams stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have gone?

Inspectors Find Banned Iraqi Bombs
www.foxnews.com...

Blix buried in 173 page document.So he did know about it.

Can you prove that Saddam has diarmed?
Do you have any links to where all of Saddams stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have gone?

No nyeff, strangely enough I don't have that evidence. But fortunately enough for me, I'm not a UN inspector. And neither are you, Colin Powell, Fox News, or George Bush!! Have you got any links to where these chemical/bio weapons actually are? No.

As far as the bombs go. That's interesting info. but I'd like to see the UN inspectors take on it. It's for them to decide whether these weapons constitute a breach.

My favourite bit of that article...

"He said then that Iraqi drones, fitted with spraying devices, could produce a chemical or biological attack not only on Iraq��s neighbors but also, if transported, on the United States"

Wow, oh my God. A range of 300 miles, but if you moved it by truck to Texas, you could launch a chemical attack against Austin, Texas. LOL. Can't you see that as scaremongering?

As I have said before in previous posts, we dont need inspectors in Iraq, we need investigators and detectives. Then when we find all of these hidden weapons, then bring in inspectors to do their job. Of course I dont have any evidence either, but I think you're kidding yourself if you think he doesn't have much much more than he is leading everyone to believe.

All I want to see is evidence. Once we have evidence the UN security council will back war.

If the US is so certain about this why are they not helping the inspectors to find this material?

You seem to think that I think that any war with Iraq launched by the US without UN approval, would be legal.

Funny thing is, I actually agree with you! But, even though I feel it to be an illegal act (at least as far as international law is concerned), I believe it is the RIGHT thing to do, regardless of semantics and rules... After all, Saddam has been flouting international law for over a decade...stepping on a few toes to end it is fine by me... I respect your opinion, and your reasons for it...mine just differs...that's all...

I understand Gazrok. I hope you don't think I'm getting personal about this, but I guess I just find it frustrating that the US is putting itself on this course...

I do feel very strongly that with no UN backing, this could turn into a diplomatic disaster, regardless of how the actual war itself goes (or how morally right it is). And I do think that France and Russia would come round to war if there were sufficient evidence that Iraq still has WMD's that it is actively hiding from inspectors...

Oh well, I respect your opinion too. You've argued your case far better than most people I've discussed this with.

I too wished it would have taken a different course... It's already a diplomatic disaster. It's just that I am for the war for other reasons. I don't agree with Bush's disastrous handling of it, but I do think it needs to happen, and sooner than later... We're still good...

nice to see a wide descussion. Well thanks guys, please dont stop commenting. Unfortunatly i havnt had time to read em all. I think that Dom, you have good ideas and are well informed in all this. You definatly know what you are talking about!! And you Gazrock, the same goes for you and you know how to structure a good argument... in fact, you both do!! Could you explain summit to me? WHAT THE HELL IS A VETO!?

Thanks!! Kris

The first time you tryied to defeat saddam, what happened? You destroyed IRAQ, you killed innocents peoples and after?

Did you take off saddam from power?
Did you free iraqis or kurds?

No...

But I dont know why, my keyboard is bugged on your site...

"Did you take off saddam from power?
Did you free iraqis or kurds?

No... "

That might have been because SOME countries (don't worry, we won't mention France's name....oops!) did not approve of regime change during the Gulf War, whereas we knew we'd have to come back in a few years...go figure....

The VETO is because, to avoid nuclear confrontations between superpowers, it was felt that all major powers needed to agree on actions taken by the UN. Problem is, not all of these members are true superpowers anymore...

Gazrok - it's actually because regime change *cannot* be sanctioned by the UN. It's against the UN charter, which is very wise, otherwise we'd undoubtedly have tried regime change in Vietnam through the UN...

The five countries with veto's are all pretty powerful countries, although there's a good argument for Japan and Germany having votes too. In fact, just switch France with Germany, but remember that Germany would then veto the resolution too...

but I meant no "official" sanction of regime change, just that such a result would not have been supported, so it wasn't pursued...

Another aspect... at the time it was well known that Saddam had chem/bio weapons (they were allegedly destroyed after the gulf war). And although up to that point the threat of nuclear response stopped any biochem attacks, it's quite possible that Saddam's last desperate gamble would have been taken as the troops reached Baghdad...

The decision not to attack Baghdad could have saved the lives of many thousands of allied troops.

[Edited on 13-3-2003 by dom]

Originally posted by Gazrok
Most anti-war protesters don't believe the ousting of Saddam is needed. They feel that since he has done nothing (but sponsor terrorism worldwide and provide havens to terrorists, while rebuilding his military to defense-unecessary levels).

The ATS has often attracted bollox, but this I just had to pick up on.

How many anti-war protestors do you know?

When I went marching in London and chatting to people I found (personally, this is not a matter of fact, but it is an informed opinion) that most do want rid of Saddam but not by a rushed war, but through a longer inspection process with the threat of force as a last resort.

How has Saddam supported terrorism?

This seems to be taken for granted, but why do you think that? Because he's a bad arab? That's not really good enough.

Can't you create some kind of screening system for people who just pretend to know what they are talking about?

[Edited on 13-3-2003 by Fantastic_Damage]

"most do want rid of Saddam but not by a rushed war, but through a longer inspection process with the threat of force as a last resort."

How do you expect longer inspections and force as a last resort to get rid of Saddam??? If I am so "uninformed", please, by all means, enlighten me...

"How has Saddam supported terrorism?"

Uhmm...you don't consider awarding the familes of suicide bombers $10,000 to be supporting terrorism? This is a public statement of Saddam's we're talking about here. Also, he provides safe haven to terrorist groups, and allows them to have bases of operation in Iraq (and has for many years). Then of course, there are the numerous accounts of Saddam's terror tactics on his own people, and I'm not just talking about the Kurds here....

Providing terrorist groups havens? Where did u hear this? Why hasn't Blair said that on his war march? The focus seems to be on his human rights record because thats all that stands up to scrutiny.