Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Answer the damn question, don't just view it.


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

Poll: Pretend inspections were increased and given ample time. Would they find anything? (0 member(s) have cast votes)

Pretend inspections were increased and given ample time. Would they find anything?

  1. Yes, they would probably uncover the hidden WMD's (12 votes [46.15%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.15%

  2. No, they would find nothing. (14 votes [53.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 53.85%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 02:05 AM

Ok Ok Ok.....Frankly, I don't care if you support the war or not. I can honestly say that I hope it does not go on.

However, suppose that Bush gives in and approves elongated inspections with more intensity. (Spy planes, unlimited access to potential sites and scientists, increased agency, a year or two, etc.)

Do you people actually think inspections will accomplish anything. I mean this: will they uncover the WMD's that obviously exist. I personally think they would come up with nothing and we would all witness a do nothing game of hide and seek.

If you chose to answer this poll please remember that all I want to know is whether you think inspections will come up with proof that Iraq has WMD
  • 0

#2 Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 02:18 AM

Everyone bitches and moans but can't take the time to make 1 mouse click and answer the question.
  • 0

#3 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2003 - 02:27 AM

During their 12 years of inspections the UN has proved Saddam had 36,000 WMD delivery systems he will not account for. The new round of inspections have found 18 of these weapons, with continued inspections they are on pace to find all of Saddam's weapons by September the 11th, of the year 2301. Only a fool or a Frenchman could believe we could contain the weapons for that long.
  • 0

#4 xexon

xexon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5013 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 02:29 AM

Saddam should be treated like toxic waste. Avoid it if possible, and bury it deep. (And hope it does'nt get into the water supply later).

Given enough time, "somebody" will turn up the forbidden goods.
  • 0

#5 pilot

pilot

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2007 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 02:32 AM

Recon

Yep, your right but isn't it easier bury head in sand for the present time?;)
  • 0

#6 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2003 - 02:32 AM

Originally posted by Recon
During their 12 years of inspections the UN has proved Saddam had 36,000 WMD delivery systems he will not account for. The new round of inspections have found 18 of these weapons, with continued inspections they are on pace to find all of Saddam's weapons by September the 11th, of the year 2301. Only a fool or a Frenchman could believe we could contain the weapons for that long.



What is the source please? I hope it did not come from the british intelligence and copied and paste from the net.
Hi Powell ;)
  • 0

#7 Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 02:36 AM

Yes, I suppose this is a loaded question but still, the results speak for themselves. ;)

I want a response from somebody who thinks inspections would turn up something good in a years time.

France/Germany/Belgium and their sidekicks would be forced to join us in combat based on 1441. Of course their promises are unreliable thus far so why should they believed in the future. If Bush is gonna do it he better do it soon. He will.
  • 0

#8 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2003 - 02:39 AM

Before you come to a discussion forum, you should do some research, learn some facts.....

I won't do your homework for you!!:P
  • 0

#9 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 02:39 AM

Iraq's being asked to prove a negative.

The burden of proof, by necessity, lies with the inspectors, the UN, or even the USA, but not the Iraqi government.

What if there are no weapons?

This is a growing possibility given the lack of sound proof presented by anyone over the last however many months of intense interest.

Saddam's a nobody.
A once defeated non entity, elevated by shameless shills to major player level, because the shills have a vested interest in the perpetuation of business as usual.

Our goverment has intentionally misidentified the enemy, and picked Saddam as the posterboy to be presented for consumption by the masses, because crushing Saddam's Iraq does the least upsetting of the status quo.

OPEC is the number one supplier of funding for Middle Eastern terrorism.
  • 0

#10 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2003 - 02:49 AM

If there were some real proof, the US would have given them to the inspectors. So far no smoking gun... I wonder why? :)

Originally posted by Recon
Before you come to a discussion forum, you should do some research, learn some facts.....

I won't do your homework for you!!:P



No thanks :)
By the way, "con" means idiot in French. You do a great job with recon and your username fits you perfectly ;)
  • 0

#11 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2003 - 02:53 AM

Brilliant!!!!! great response , carry on little girl, you belittle yourself to insults..
  • 0

#12 pilot

pilot

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2007 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 03:01 AM

Recon

Da-mn-it, Saddooooom has already said he has no WMD any where in his country... Don't you have any faith in him? He wouldn't lie, would he?;)
  • 0

#13 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 03:03 AM

Well all that sounds great KoWT.

There's just one inconvenient fact and that
is UNSC 1441, with which Saddam is not
complying in substance. He may offer you
the odd bone but is seeking to delay the
process until the planes cannot fly and the
soldiers would overheat in the summer Sun.

Why, for example, would Saddam come up
with legislation and spy planes now and
not back in November?
  • 0

#14 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2003 - 03:05 AM

I'm with ya man.............., we are just tooooo ignorant to believe!

:D
  • 0

#15 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2003 - 03:07 AM

Originally posted by Recon
Brilliant!!!!! great response , carry on little girl, you belittle yourself to insults..


"little girl"? LOL
I knew you lacked some education. It wasn't needed to do some search. More about elysee at http://www.elysee.fr ;)
  • 0

#16 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2003 - 03:22 AM

You are a little girl, who can not carry on a discussion without a retort,.

When you ASSume things, you are only making an A S S of yourself....
  • 0

#17 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 03:26 AM

Originally posted by vigorous
Well all that sounds great KoWT.

There's just one inconvenient fact and that
is UNSC 1441, with which Saddam is not
complying in substance. He may offer you
the odd bone but is seeking to delay the
process until the planes cannot fly and the
soldiers would overheat in the summer Sun.

Why, for example, would Saddam come up
with legislation and spy planes now and
not back in November?



I'm no Saddam fan.
Saddam's behaving like a cornered rat, for sure.
But this behavior isn't, in and of itself, proof that Saddam's packing WMD and an invasion/occupation is called for.

It's not as though the UN isn't used to having memberstates flaunt orders. Why is it absolutely necessary to zealously enforce decade old resolutions written, at the time, to defang a despot that is already defanged?

If this were a UN inspired op, where are the baby blue helmets and goofy UN banners?
All I see is Stars and Bars.

Did the UN order the US to mass forces in the region and threaten Iraq's sovereignty with wild talk like a US sponsored revival of the Heshimite Empire and oil fields held in US thrall, I mean escrow, and such?

The UN is not, nor was it ever meant to be, a means to conquest, no matter what lawyers think 1441 says.
  • 0

#18 BWII

BWII

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1913 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 04:20 AM

[x] No funkin' clue.

Heads or tails in my opinion.
  • 0

#19 crock

crock

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 05:35 AM

Originally posted by Uncle Sam
Yes, I suppose this is a loaded question but still, the results speak for themselves. ;)

I want a response from somebody who thinks inspections would turn up something good in a years time.

France/Germany/Belgium and their sidekicks would be forced to join us in combat based on 1441. Of course their promises are unreliable thus far so why should they believed in the future. If Bush is gonna do it he better do it soon. He will.




I think saddam has weapons hidden somewhere,i'll admit there is limited proof on what may be in iraq,but surly if usa attacked iraq saddam would reveal what he has.so in other words the inspecters could do there work from cnn.
  • 0

#20 crock

crock

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 05:37 AM

I also answered the poll as Yes.As yes as yes can be.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru