fafalone Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 1) Technically no, but they knew full-well that a use-of-force resolution would be proposed if they failed to do so. And yes, they are bound to disclose them, but disappearing weapons does not provide a "currently accurate" report of the whereabouts of their weapons. 2) I seriously am bothered by your interpretation of this resolution. Basically you're saying Iraq is permitted to hide their weapons, this is not the case. 3) Wow, maybe you should be the director of our CIA or British Intelligence since your definition of a stable country is correct and their definitions are wrong. Originally posted by Giles 1) I agree that they continually refuse to account for them. The problem is that, legally, they have not been bound to reveal them in order to avert war (or 'serious conseqeunces'). 2) But not by this resolution, which stipulates that previous UN resolutions are not binding with respect to the consequences of it. 6) Despite the fact that the IRA want to cede from the UK, they do not pose a threat to the stability of our government. And nor do the Kurds pose a serious threat to Hussain's control of the rest of iraq (pending further deterioration of his power at our hands). And with respect to external action, Iraq certainly is stable, due to western intervention. I agree, pakistan's government is western-friendly, but it is at risk from fundamentalist and/or anti-western tendencies in parts of its population - especially given its instability. Do you remember the TV footage of pakistanis cheering the 9/11 attacks? (I assume it was reported in your country.)
Adam Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 Originally posted by aman If the Palestinians could get rid of Arafat and get decent leadership, there might finally be peace. The peoples have gotten along before. Remember what 1 spoon of anthrax did to the US for months. Imagine kilos and then try to think of saddam as somebody we can just give more and more time. He needs to be removed yesterday. Just aman Obiously you don't understand that Arafat is the only person that could ever create peace between palestine and Israel, Israelitis are aware that if they assasinate him , it will lead do a nuclear strike. Arafat wants to talk to Sharon personally as we're posting, what does that tell you? does it tell you anything at all?
Giles Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 (1) I suspect they thought that the west would decide based on its own interests. (2) That's basically it, I already said the resolution was unbelievably stupidly worded. That they are not permitted to hide weaponry is not per se a function of the resolution itself. (3) I was careful in what i stipulated about Iraqi stability. With regard to internal stability, I went no further than countering your argument and did not address other factors. With respect to their external stability, this is not a manner in which the term is usually employed. I was trying to cover all bases. I meant nothing more than to say that they are unlikely to try another military adventure under present conditions. Certainly 'stable' as used by the intelligence services is a more technical term. And they have hardly been infallible in their assessment of the region before. I'm also dissappointed that someone moderating a science forum is employing an 'argument from authority'. Originally posted by fafalone 1) Technically no, but they knew full-well that a use-of-force resolution would be proposed if they failed to do so. And yes, they are bound to disclose them, but disappearing weapons does not provide a "currently accurate" report of the whereabouts of their weapons. 2) I seriously am bothered by your interpretation of this resolution. Basically you're saying Iraq is permitted to hide their weapons, this is not the case. 3) Wow, maybe you should be the director of our CIA or British Intelligence since your definition of a stable country is correct and their definitions are wrong.
Adam Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 My personal opinion is, If U.S. and ISRAEL can have weapons of global destruction but no one else can't, then they shouldn't listen to U.S. because what kind of fair treaty is that.
fafalone Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 I just used intelligence agencies in my argument to provide further support for the countless things I've read about Iraq. Intelligence agencies are quite good at what they do, and if you think otherwise, odds are you don't have a good grasp of their operations.
fafalone Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 There's at least a dozen countries with nuclear weapons.
Adam Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone There's at least a dozen countries with nuclear weapons. It doesn't matter, the point is, THE US AND ISRAEL are allowed to posess weapons of mass destruction on their soil without limitation. Why Does the U.S. government not want other countries to have equal oportunities to defend themselves, The U.S. has military advantage, So the other countries should be allowed to have em for it to be fair.
fafalone Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 So are most of the other nuclear countries. Just not the unstable ones.
Piccolo Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 Well your right Fafalon unstable countries have nukes and its wrong. But Sometimes I think Israel shouldnt have a Nukes either lol
PogoC7 Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 Having nukes is fine. It's like that one simpsons episode. Lisa convinces everyone in town to ban guns. Once the do, they need them to defend themselves. Now, am not saying that might need to use them (one should never be detonate), but allow countries who are responsible enought to know how to use nuclear energy. This being the U.S. Although, with cooperation; other countries my "use" nuclear energy. Thses countries must understand that; the U.S. not willing to risk nuclear war with anyone, but that the U.S. are the peace keeper of the "free" world. Like one famous American citizen once said. "Can't we all just get along". Brings a tear to my eye everytime.*Cry**Cry*
Piccolo Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 Yes Rodny king said that. But we did say the Us wasnt fit to have it just unstable countries.
PogoC7 Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 I'm speaking about Nuclear Energy in general. Many countries today use nuclear weapons are Political gain. Nuclear war is only a threat from "motherfuckers".
Piccolo Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 It is still not good to have Nukes in general, if terrorists got a hold of one it would be catastrophic.
fafalone Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 And the more countries that have them, the more chance of terrorists getting ahold of one. Especially with unstable states. This is why all the countries that have them don't want more nations developing them.
Matzi Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 Either no one has them or everyone. That are the only possibilities. I'd prefer the first one...
Piccolo Posted January 31, 2003 Posted January 31, 2003 Its funny I hate Nukes and all but the question is would their be more wars withought them?
aman Posted February 1, 2003 Posted February 1, 2003 The nukes are what put the reigns on Stalin after WW11. Since then they actually have kept the peace between the superpowers of the past 60 yrs. I don't think we could have stayed out of war again without them. Just aman
Guest MR.X Posted February 1, 2003 Posted February 1, 2003 I am Al Gore and I hate you and I want a recount you freak. I really won, and I should be in the white house right now, meeting Monica, because I have heard from my best friend bill clinton that she is really nice. So nuke Iraq and good night my fellow misscounters. P.S. Go back to basic math before the next election.
fafalone Posted February 1, 2003 Posted February 1, 2003 MR.X = George W. Bush (the other impersonator, not the president)
Piccolo Posted February 1, 2003 Posted February 1, 2003 Does anyone know what gass the russians used against the rebels in the recent hostage situation in a opera? Im curious. I didnt want to post a thread just for this question.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now