Iraq: U.S. POWs to be shown on TV

raid517 · Mar 30, 2003, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Well, Raid, we don't have to find a drop of anthrax to legitimize this war. To anyone familiar with 1441 (it isn't long; I reccommend that anyone serious about this debate take a minute to read it), the onus was placed squarely on the shoulders of Saddam Hussein, with the inspectors there as verifiers, not detectives. Saddam's regime did not give a full, complete, or accurate listing of his weapons*. That puts him in material breach, and, authorizes --under the provisions of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter-- military force.

I think it is silly to be doubtful of the outcome of this war based on little more than a week of fighting.

* Examples of how Saddam has failed to comply with the simple task of declaring his weapons are legion. The most recent example was his regime's use of a SCUD missile against Kuwait -- a weapon that is illegal for the Iraqis to possess.

Oh give it up JF, this government didn't give a flying turd about the UN, or anything that happened there. Indeed if it hadn't been for Blair persuading Bush to go there, there was no intention in the US' original strategy to approach the un or seek a new resolution at all. So you say it doesn't matter if nothing is found? Well I say they better damn well find something, because in that 'full and frank' declaration the Iraqis said they had destroyed these weapons. We supposedly went to war because we didn't believe them. So if we don't find anything then that means they were telling the truth, which means we attacked them under a false pretext. So yes it very much does matter that something is found. If not, the entire Arab world will never forgive America and the UK for their action in Iraq.

But as usual certain members of the right have very short memories - and are happy to forget the reasons touted by the leadership for beginning this war in the first place.

Still if it is the rights intention to try to make people forget about talk of WMD (the administration hasn't even mentioned it for the last 5 days) then it certainly seems to be working for some.

Q

raid517 · Mar 30, 2003, 04:21 AM

Oh and that 'Scud' is still disputed, the impact and the debris were too small to have been a Scud. He had missiles for sure, but until the US and UK attacked him, he certainly wasn't using them.

Q

JavaFox · Mar 30, 2003, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Well I say they better damn well find something, because in that 'full and frank' declaration the Iraqis said they had destroyed these weapons.

Right. Like the Al Samoud II missiles? Or the unaccounted for stashes of anthrax and Vx? If the Iraqi government can't even be frank about its Al Samoud II missiles (which are also a banned ordinance), why would you give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to WMD?

Falstaff · Mar 30, 2003, 04:34 AM

WMD man, chemical weapon gear in the desert? trace elements in the soil? that was from twelve years ago, Americans were exposed to it when the blew up ammunition dumps in southern IRAQ....And Hussien authorized the use of two exocet missles from a french made etentard strike aircraft on the USS Stark and then had the gaul to deny it, and reward the pilot.....

Falstaff · Mar 30, 2003, 04:41 AM

They make VX gas, I am sure we will find labels on the chemical ordinance buried in the desert..."made in France". this really is a dirty war....I hope they don't use the POW's as human shields...

raid517 · Mar 30, 2003, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Right. Like the Al Samoud II missiles? Or the unaccounted for stashes of anthrax and Vx? If the Iraqi government can't even be frank about its Al Samoud II missiles (which are also a banned ordinance), why would you give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to WMD?

I'm not. And I was quoting, note the quote marks... But what I am saying is that both our governments appear increasingly reluctant to talk about this anymore. I remember Blair's comment that Saddam has so much chemical and biological weapons that the majority of his troops could gain access to them in a matter of hours. Clearly the implication is that they expected us to believe these weapons were much more widely spread - and much more readily accessible than they actually were. So what happens if nothing is found? Won't that look like the biggest blunder of all?

It certainly won't do any good for public relations if it looks like we went to war over non existent weapons of mass destruction - and then brought about a global Muslim backlash because of it.

Q

Mar 30, 2003, 04:34 AM	#154
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	He's gotta a point WMD man, chemical weapon gear in the desert? trace elements in the soil? that was from twelve years ago, Americans were exposed to it when the blew up ammunition dumps in southern IRAQ....And Hussien authorized the use of two exocet missles from a french made etentard strike aircraft on the USS Stark and then had the gaul to deny it, and reward the pilot..... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Mar 30, 2003, 04:41 AM	#155
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	The French They make VX gas, I am sure we will find labels on the chemical ordinance buried in the desert..."made in France". this really is a dirty war....I hope they don't use the POW's as human shields... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Mar 30, 2003, 04:21 AM	#152
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Oh and that 'Scud' is still disputed, the impact and the debris were too small to have been a Scud. He had missiles for sure, but until the US and UK attacked him, he certainly wasn't using them. Q