UNITED NATIONS (CNN) – Iraq says it will allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return “immediately and without conditions.”
Sadly, those who wish to will find an excuse for attacking irregardless.
Unfortunately i still feel the US will take advantage of Iraq.
Simply, US will attack Iraq!
Saudis have already given the Air-base to US. What else are we expecting?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Sadly, those who wish to will find an excuse for attacking irregardless.
[/QUOTE]
Nadia I believe you have misheard the U.S.
Anyone who trusts Saddam by his words alone is a fool. The U.S. and the world have a right to be and should be very wary of Mr. Hussian and what he says. Should the U.S. now sit back and let Saddam play his games? No. The only reason the Saddam regime agreed to inspections in the first place is because the U.S. and what looks to be the UN were finally standing up to him. The U.S. as well as (hopefully) the UN will not back down now nor when inspections start (if they really ever do). They will be breathing down his neck and make it clear that if he plays anymore games it will be his regimes last. It has been proven by this Iraqi concession, who only days ago said they would not allow unrestricted inspections in, that they will only keep their promises if they face elimination. To condemn the U.S. now for their statements of doubt that they have in Saddam would be foolish. It is after all the U.S.'s actions up to now that has caused this "breakthrough" and very well may be the reason that a WMD is never used by Saddam, in essence you are condemning the peace of future generations.
What's the difference between Saddam and war-mongering bush?
UTD,
Thank you very much for a thought-out reply.
i am sorry, i don’t know what to say in regards to your comment that the US’s actions uptil now have resulted in a “breakthrough”. IMHO, it is the US admin that has been changing the goalposts vis-a-vis Iraq’s UN-mandated objectives. Don’t take it from me, though; this is from a report by the Inter-Church Action; i know it’s long but i hope you’ll take the time to read it carefully (i don’t think i have quoted this specific segment before, so don’t worry if you’re afraid it will make for redundant reading 
):
So what does all that mean?
Iraq already has complied according to numerous former UN officials (Scott Ritter: “98%” disarmed). Rather i believe we must give the people of Iraq an incentive for their govt. to abide by UN Resolutions: why not lift all non-military sanctions in return for weapons inspections? With all due respect to yourself, errrm… what right does a government that was caught overstepping its UN mandates by employing weapons inspectors as SPIES, have to insist that a sovereign country be disarmed? No right whatsoever, it would seem to me. While we are insisting for abiding by Resolutions, why not implement Paragraph 14 of UN Resolution 687 that calls for regional disarmament? Shall we start with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and Israel? And if the answer to the latter question is no, then why does the US admin employ historical double standards when it comes to decision-making regarding its foreign policies? We argue that Hussein abuses Iraq’s Kurdish population; doesn’t Turkey do the same? We argue that Iraq invaded Kuwait; isn’t Israel in its 35th year of an illegal occupation?
Iraq permitted the UN weapons inspectors unconditionally!!
now what USA want ?.Iraq has permitted the UN weapons inspectors to do their work unconditionally..there is no reason for USA to attack anymore on Iraq..but now they are saying is a "political tactic"..
Re: Iraq permitted the UN weapons inspectors unconditionally!!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Truth_Is_Beauty: *
now what USA want ? Iraq has permitted the UN weapons inspectors to do their work unconditionally..
[/QUOTE]
That is not exactly true. Saddam has said he will permit the UN weapons inspectors to do their work unconditionally...
There is still a big jump to him actually permitting it and it actually happening. He has lied and stalled before.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia:
what right does a government that was caught overstepping its UN mandates by employing weapons inspectors as SPIES, have to insist that a sovereign country be disarmed?
[/quote]
Saddam fought and LOST a war. Under terms of his surrender, he agreed to be disarmed.
Who cares.
He should be taken out period.
He is responsible for killing muslims.
He has commited war crimes.
He does not deserve to live.
However i will not support US troops in a region.
Even under the UN.
This is a matter they need not concern themselves with.
As of today there has been no credible proof that he is a threat.
To the US or the world.
Attacking IRAQ is just the 3rd step, next is Iran, list goes on..
Attacking IRAQ is just a drama to get to IRAN.
If U.S wanted to get rid of saddam, they wouldve done so long time ago how they got rid of zia ul haq
It’s not just the U.S…
Canada Backs U.S., Wants New U.N. Iraq Resolution
Tue Sep 17, 2:37 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Canada threw its weight behind that of the United States on Tuesday, saying the United Nations Security Council should draw up a new resolution on the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq.
Washington is insisting on a fresh resolution, while Russia says this is unnecessary in the wake of Iraq’s offer to allow the inspectors to return without conditions.
Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham welcomed the Iraqi offer but said there were widespread suspicions about whether Baghdad in fact had something to hide.
“I think we should support the United States in their position that in fact what is required at this time is a Security Council resolution because it should make it clear to the world and to Iraq that there is no playing around with this,” Graham told reporters at the United Nations.
“This is where the rubber hits the road…there is no opportunity for wriggle room. There is no more wriggling to be done by Iraq and the world community has made that clear to them (the Iraqis),” he said after meeting Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Who cares.
He should be taken out period.
He is responsible for killing muslims.
He has commited war crimes.
He does not deserve to live.
However i will not support US troops in a region.
Even under the UN.
This is a matter they need not concern themselves with.
As of today there has been no credible proof that he is a threat.
To the US or the world.
[/QUOTE]
It's as if one person wrote the first half of this post
and one person wrote the 2nd half. They don't match up.
Seminole, i guess you need glasses.
I wrote it, but that doesnt mean it has to make sense to you.
I want saddam dead.
But i wont agree with if the allows the US foothold in another Islamic country.
There is no proof.
He is a tyrant but of a thug level.
He aint Hitler or Stalin.
I still havent seen proof that he has WMD.
I want the sanctions gone and that will happen with the death of saddam.
But does that mean his death will lead to positive results nope.
There are certainities, and when it comes to the US, moral values fly out the window.
Well, who then exactly is going to take care of Saddam? No one else is stepping up to the plate.
What proof do you need of WMD? Ask the Kurds about his weapons. He lost a war and was allowed to keep his power only because of the concessions he made in the terms of his surrender. The major terms required him to dismantle his weapons and allow unfettered access. He hasn't.
Re: Re: Iraq permitted the UN weapons inspectors unconditionally!!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Under terms of his surrender, he agreed to be disarmed.
[/QUOTE]
He did agree, but he did not agree that the sanctions would continue even if he did allow weapons inspectors in. That's changing the rules.
When were the kurds gassed Sem?
I will make it easy on you, what century was it?
There is no proof that Saddam is a danger.
If there is some, show it here.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
When were the kurds gassed Sem?
I will make it easy on you, what century was it?
There is no proof that Saddam is a danger.
If there is some, show it here.
[/QUOTE]
See September 24th 2002.
Iraq Dossier is due then.
Will the whole dossier be made available? I think not. Plus i dont see how Iraq can keep its WMD if they are under sanctions and the US is vigilant about keeping them in place and allow no smuggling. Of course if they do, that means a serious lapse by the US or they were very happy with happening as it fits in perfectly with their plans
Hey mod, irregardless is not a word.