 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:32
|
|
quote:
Because the US was using them to spy on him, and he knew it. |
Oh give me a ****ing break of your idiotic propoganda, will you?
The US didn't need any opportunity to spy on him, since it was already able to bug phone calls in Iraq, and had it's amount of human sources there. And when it comes to satellite pictures, no one beats the Americans.
The inspector "spies" only accessed those sites releveant to WMD inspections. It eventually visited plants that were supposedly making everything from bottled water to what ever.
So what new secret information the USA was spying on? The status of the WMD programs he had.
So, let's put it in the frame of your arguement.
Saddam refused to let the inspectors to see if he had a WMD program, because America would use that opportunity to see if he has a WMD program. Which is what Saddam was supposed to tell the world anyway.
Obviously a very logical arguement.
But it is astonishingly similar to the truth:
Saddam feared that US spies would discover what he hoped to hide from scientists who are less professional in realizing when there's a covert action going on around you.
quote:
Uhh... so, if he destroyed the programme, what was the reason for attack? |
Well we don't really know what he had done with the program. We know it was there until very recently, and we know that when asked, Saddam, instead of showing us clear evidence of the destruction of said programs, did everything he could to avoid it. He first omitted any evidence of such programs. Then he tried to refuse inspections. Then he spied on them and tricked them. Then he threatened his own scientists.
This hardly seems like the behaviour of a person who knows he is guilty of what he is suspected of.
And due to the fact the US knew that he had programs and weapons until recently, and most of it was left unaccounted for, and Saddam denied the UN of any evidence of their destruction, simply claiming nothing ever existed, and knowing Saddam's character - the US decided that if Saddam is not removed, we may never really know what happenned to the weapons and programs.
quote:
Erm, this might be a silly little question, but, uh, would it matter if Libya had WMD's? |
because it could:
1. threaten it's neighbours
2. do all sorts of nasty things like supporting terrorism, and get away with it ("I'll nuke you if you attack me!")
3. give nukes to terrorist agents.
4. an extremist coup could give the weapons to people like bin-laden.
Obviously those are all theoretical dangers. As I said, I have the impression that Gadaffi stopped supporting terrorism after he was attacked. But who knows? If he had nukes to protect his power, maybe he would feel safe to support it again.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Emperor Fabulous
|
 |
Apolyton's Resident Actor-in-Training
Aug 1999
time: 00:32
|
|
Ned: 
Capturing Saddam Hussein is a great thing. However, it does not make the world a safer place, and especially not for Americans. Dean is absolutely right in this. People are out there who want to kill a person because they are American. While this has always been the case, it is on the rise now that we are waging a crusade against Muslim nations.
Kaddafi did pledge an end to his WMD programs, that is correct. However, Libya has been attempting to cozy up to the west for a lot longer, years in fact. The payments to the families of those killed in the bombings, the pledge to attempt to root out terrorism, and the apologies for past wrong-doings are not because of the war in Iraq.
Unlike Hussein, Kaddafi doesn't have the capacity to allow his country to decay any more through sanctions. He sees that he needs the trade with the West, and the only way to do that is to appease the US.
On the other hand, the dictators who haven't been trying to make amends with the West for years are still as boistrous as ever. Kim Jong Il has touted his nuclear capabilities. Iran is defiant to the US' whims. Syria continues to support Palistinian terror organizations. Osama "Dead or Alive" Bin Laden is still at large, and his group still has the capacity to pull off attacks around the world. There may even be one over this holiday period.
The world is NOT safer because one man is gone. Perhaps Iraq may be in a better standing in a few months, but the policy of Speak Loud and Carry A Big Stick is not making the world safe for Americans or those of allied nations.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-12-2003 04:56
Attachment: 
|
